[GS] World Congress: I vote we ban Crabs!

[Disgustipated]

I'm hoping only certain resources can be banned. I have my hopes they will get that right at least. Banning dyes is just silliness. But you can make a case for banning turtles, whales, ivory, diamonds (as in blood diamonds- but I don't think that would work in this game), furs, jeans (I'm kidding on this one), pearls? (I'm not exactly sure how they get these), tobacco, sugar (for health reasons), and wine (as in prohibition). Mercury is an iffy one as it's used in technical equipment I believe.

As for strategic resources: coal, horses, oil, and uranium seem somewhat feasible to ban.

And I really don't think any of them should be able to be banned before the modern era.

 

[Forster]

Personally, I have never liked the Congress or UN concept. Banning is perfectly fine as long as you can choose to disregard it. Doing so should cost you diplomatically with the civs that wanted it, but, that's the breaks. What I hate is a resource or luxury is banned and you are forced to abide by it, even when you are the strongest nation. I hope that the choice to have the UN/Congress will be optional in you game set-up screen.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I am definitely excited for the World Congress. I especially like that emergencies will be linked to it. Being able to call a session of the World Congress to propose an emergency against another civ will be very cool and much better than the current system. I do hope that the civs are able to make statements at the World Congress. Even if there is no real gameplay affect, it would add a lot of flavor to the game if say at the beginning of each session, each civ could issue a denouncement or a praise of another civ. You could do this by just moving the denounce notifications you get to only happen during a world congress scene. But that would make the world congress feel like a real UN where the civs are denouncing or praising each other.

 

[Zaarin]

Perhaps that was fixed in a late patch. The unmodded AI won't ban it's own luxuries, will typically vote against a proposal if it produces the luxury (unless there's a higher priority proposal to vote on), and will abstain if it doesn't produce the luxury but is receiving it through trade.

Are you sure you weren't using a mod that improved the AI? I played Civ5 unmodded until the day Civ6 was released, and again I regularly saw it ban its own luxuries.

pearls? (I'm not exactly sure how they get these)

Pearls are usually sustainably farmed these days.

sugar (for health reasons)

Yay for recreating the People's Republic of California.

wine (as in prohibition)

That worked so well. On which note, I think they could reasonably create certain bonuses for banned luxuries: alcohol sales skyrocketed during Prohibition, and anything banned is going to fetch a handsome price among certain "select clientel."

Mercury is an iffy one as it's used in technical equipment I believe.

Is there any place on Earth where mercury is even a restricted substance? It may not be used in elixirs of immortality any more (I still believe Qin's alchemists knew exactly what they were doing ), but it has a lot of important scientific and technical applications.

Personally, I have never liked the Congress or UN concept. Banning is perfectly fine as long as you can choose to disregard it. Doing so should cost you diplomatically with the civs that wanted it, but, that's the breaks. What I hate is a resource or luxury is banned and you are forced to abide by it, even when you are the strongest nation. I hope that the choice to have the UN/Congress will be optional in you game set-up screen.

I like the idea of deeper diplomacy and diplomatic favors and having options to avenge wrongs without war, but, as you say, I want the option to defy resolutions and/or not participate at a diplomatic cost. I also want the AI to not act like a moron and arbitrarily ban resources, as noted above.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I'm pretty sure in the live stream, Ed or Dennis mentioned towards the end a system where the World Congress could be used to "promote" a certain resource causing the yields to be doubled and they used the example of a banana empire. I can't seem to find it right now...it doesn't preclude the possibility that banning things will still be incorporated, but maybe they decided to go a different this time.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm pretty sure in the live stream, Ed or Dennis mentioned towards the end a system where the World Congress could be used to "promote" a certain resource causing the yields to be doubled and they used the example of a banana empire. I can't seem to find it right now...it doesn't preclude the possibility that banning things will still be incorporated, but maybe they decided to go a different this time.

Dennis Shirk mentioned both banning and promoting resources using the specific example of bananas, which means bonus resources are also on the table.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yeah I remember him saying that. He did say yields would be doubled.

 

[AriochIV]

Ed & Dennis explicitly said that resource bans will be back. I think that was probably the most annoying aspect of the World Congress in previous iterations, so I'm not glad to hear that. I get that it's modeled on real bans of ivory, etc., but I don't see where the fun is supposed to be in this feature. It's not even particularly fun to ban a resource that another civilization is using, and it's certainly not fun to have your resources banned.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Ed & Dennis explicitly said that resource bans will be back. I think that was probably the most annoying aspect of the World Congress in previous iterations, so I'm not glad to hear that. I get that it's modeled on real bans of ivory, etc., but I don't see where the fun is supposed to be in this feature. It's not even particularly fun to ban a resource that another civilization is using, and it's certainly not fun to have your resources banned.

It was pretty fun in multiplayer V, just to wind people up!

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Ed & Dennis explicitly said that resource bans will be back. I think that was probably the most annoying aspect of the World Congress in previous iterations, so I'm not glad to hear that. I get that it's modeled on real bans of ivory, etc., but I don't see where the fun is supposed to be in this feature. It's not even particularly fun to ban a resource that another civilization is using, and it's certainly not fun to have your resources banned.

1. They implied that there may be other affects that have averse efects on a proposal, so a resource could get banned OR it could increase its yields somehow. Which I found interesting.

2. I also think the reason why there was such an issue in Civ 5 is because there was so few proposals that you could repeat, and the other one (embargo) would usually have severe effects on anyone who was trading with those civs.

 

[Dragabond]

The World Congress was the bane of my existence in Civ V. I got a mod to get rid of it basically as soon as I had a handle on what it was all about. There were entirely too many times when I had good relationships crumble to dust after literally millennia of friendship, simply because of world congress propositions specifically designed to ban everything that I owned.

So, no, not excited. Cautiously hopeful that it will be different this time, but expecting that I'll be looking for ways to just shut it off again.

 

[Disgustipated]

The real question is how likely are these bans likely to pass? They don't seem that likely to me. Who is going to spend valuable diplomacy influence points on something trivial like this? Well probably the brain dead AI. . This isn't Civ5 where you (or the AI) can just buy your city states and get everything to bend your way. So that's a good thing. I'm hoping these bans will be rare.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The World Congress was the bane of my existence in Civ V. I got a mod to get rid of it basically as soon as I had a handle on what it was all about. There were entirely too many times when I had good relationships crumble to dust after literally millennia of friendship, simply because of world congress propositions specifically designed to ban everything that I owned.

For me, 90% of the decision about what to propose in the Congress is based on "who will like this, who won't?". And when it's time to vote, it's about "can I tip this resolution in my favour? do I need to? is it better to abstain and hope it goes down without annoying the proposer?"

Oftentimes, the biggest in game impact is about the change in your relationships. Balancing the importance of those relationships with the other impacts of the resolution is great fun.

EDIT: Almost forgot: also throwing the leadership of the Congress to someone who wouldn't have got it without your support. Especially nice because there's then a chance they will reciprocate in a future Congress, and send leadership to you that you couldn't have otherwise taken.

 

[AriochIV]

Who is going to spend valuable diplomacy influence points on something trivial like this? Well probably the brain dead AI. .

If the brain-dead AI spends its influence points trying to ban your resources, then you'll have have to spend yours to try to prevent it.

For me, 90% of the decision about what to propose in the Congress is based on "who will like this, who won't?". And when it's time to vote, it's about "can I tip this resolution in my favour? do I need to? is it better to abstain and hope it goes down without annoying the proposer?"

Oftentimes, the biggest in game impact is about the change in your relationships. Balancing the importance of those relationships with the other impacts of the resolution is great fun.

And the problem with this in Civ V was that relationships were irrelevant, as they would always go south in the late game. Civ VI isn't all that much different in that respect.

 

[Dragabond]

For me, 90% of the decision about what to propose in the Congress is based on "who will like this, who won't?". And when it's time to vote, it's about "can I tip this resolution in my favour? do I need to? is it better to abstain and hope it goes down without annoying the proposer?"

Oftentimes, the biggest in game impact is about the change in your relationships. Balancing the importance of those relationships with the other impacts of the resolution is great fun.

EDIT: Almost forgot: also throwing the leadership of the Congress to someone who wouldn't have got it without your support. Especially nice because there's then a chance they will reciprocate in a future Congress, and send leadership to you that you couldn't have otherwise taken.

I found nothing fun about an idiot AI that has nothing but positive modifiers for hundreds of turns turning around and deciding that they need to ban my salt, then getting upset with me when I say "Can we please not do that?" and vote accordingly, because I stopped their proposal from being passed.

I also found nothing fun with the few times playing multiplayer with several friends, because none of us cared to vote on any of the resolutions that we were putting forward, so it was just a waste of time for everybody involved.

 

[shaglio]

If banning and promoting luxuries is in, at the time of voting I hope there is at least a notification (mouse-over, perhaps) that will let us know who has the luxury and who is importing it. I’d hate to accidentally ban a luxury that I completely forgot I was trading for