Worried about the sanction mechanic

[ggmoyang]

Diplomatic actions are grouped in CIv 7, and there's Sanction category. In this category there are several 'hinder xxx' actions. For example, Hinder Agriculture reduces target's food production by 20% for 10 turns. This already sounds too strong - it doesn't say 'in a settlement' so I assume it would be a global penalty. This probably targets a single settlement, but still can be quite annoying. Imagine a settlement suddenly going starving...
Another concern is there will be many kinds of hinder abilities - We can already see there are hinder Finances, Civic Study and Agriculture. And I can imagine there will be hinder Production and Science Research. Now imagine AIs dogpiling on you, spamming these all kinds of hinder abilities. That's definitely not fun, I could see me ragequitting in a such instance.
What do you think?

 

[pokiehl]

Diplomatic actions are grouped in CIv 7, and there's Sanction category. In this category there are several 'hinder xxx' actions. For example, Hinder Agriculture reduces target's food production by 20% for 10 turns. This already sounds too strong - it doesn't say 'in a settlement' so I assume it would be a global penalty.
Another concern is there will be many kinds of hinder abilities - We can already see there are hinder Finances, Civic Study and Agriculture. And I can imagine there will be hinder Production and Science Research. Not imagine AIs dogpiling on you can spamming these all kinds of hinder abilities. That's definitely not fun, I could see me ragequitting in a such instance.
What do you think?

First of all, good catch. I hadn't noticed this yet.

I actually REALLY like the look of this. Diplomacy should be able to be thoroughly weaponized. I'm sure there will be a balance to this.

 

[Zaarin]

On the contrary, I'm very excited about more meaningful diplomatic choices and the ability to hamper your rivals without going to war.

 

[Krikkit1]

Diplomatic actions are grouped in CIv 7, and there's Sanction category. In this category there are several 'hinder xxx' actions. For example, Hinder Agriculture reduces target's food production by 20% for 10 turns. This already sounds too strong - it doesn't say 'in a settlement' so I assume it would be a global penalty.
Another concern is there will be many kinds of hinder abilities - We can already see there are hinder Finances, Civic Study and Agriculture. And I can imagine there will be hinder Production and Science Research. Not imagine AIs dogpiling on you can spamming these all kinds of hinder abilities. That's definitely not fun, I could see me ragequitting in a such instance.
What do you think?

I imagine it can be reduced by certain internal policies or by diplomacy with others.

 

[ggmoyang]

First of all, good catch. I hadn't noticed this yet.

I actually REALLY like the look of this. Diplomacy should be able to be thoroughly weaponized. I'm sure there will be a balance to this.

These actions use new influence resource, maybe it would be balanced if those actions costed much.
From what I've seen, the Palace have 10 influence output so 55 influence cost doesn't sound expensive. Rather, it's quite cheap.
If high difficulty AI gets influence bonus it could be a nightmare.

 

[pokiehl]

These actions use new influence resource, maybe it would be balanced if those actions costed much.
From what I've seen, palace have base of 10 influence output so 55 influence cost doesn't sound expensive. Rather, it's quite cheap.

They can balance it with Influence costs, cool down periods, general limitations of use per age, potential repercussions to the aggressor civs, offering the target civ the ability to counter it with their OWN Influence...it could require an agreement threshold among other civs...There are a lot of ways. I'm sure what's there will be good.

 

[Navelgazer]

Yeah, I also like the look of this. Probably because I like to play diplomatically, so having more options on how to work that is always going to appeal to me. Tired of the days of "hey my declared friend is now razing my city states and sending carpets of missionaries to erase my religion. Guess there's not much I can do about it!"

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Diplomatic actions are grouped in CIv 7, and there's Sanction category. In this category there are several 'hinder xxx' actions. For example, Hinder Agriculture reduces target's food production by 20% for 10 turns. This already sounds too strong - it doesn't say 'in a settlement' so I assume it would be a global penalty.
Another concern is there will be many kinds of hinder abilities - We can already see there are hinder Finances, Civic Study and Agriculture. And I can imagine there will be hinder Production and Science Research. Not imagine AIs dogpiling on you can spamming these all kinds of hinder abilities. That's definitely not fun, I could see me ragequitting in a such instance.
What do you think?

I think this is something that can be fixed in a balance patch if needed. Those numbers are not final. The devs can tweak the numbers if they are too strong. Also, there are other ways to balance the feature too like having a cool off period so that sanctions can't be used too often. Also, they could make the influence cost for sanctions go up each time you use a sanction to make sanctions more expensive to use. So there are ways to balance the feature. I would not be too worried until we see it in action.

I do like the concept a lot. I like that diplomacy will be useful to actually do stuff against civs you don't like rather than war. I think civ needs more diplomatic ways to "attack" a civ without going to war. And I think this feature will make it more important to invest in good relations with civs. If you have too many enemies then they can really hurt you with sanctions as it should be. And it will make warmongering a lot riskier because if you alienate everyone, then they can dogpile sanctions on you and it should hurt. Reminds me of what happened with Ukraine and Russia where NATO piled on sanctions against Russia to punish them for invading Ukraine. Now, we have ways to punish civs that do stuff we don't like without going to war. For example, if a civ attacks a friendly independent power, we can sanction them without going to war. Coupled with the war support mechanic, we can support a friendly civ that is being attacked. So I think this will make diplomacy more meaningful in the game. It will matter more who your friends are and who your enemies are.

 

[bbbt]

Diplomatic actions are grouped in CIv 7, and there's Sanction category. In this category there are several 'hinder xxx' actions. For example, Hinder Agriculture reduces target's food production by 20% for 10 turns. This already sounds too strong - it doesn't say 'in a settlement' so I assume it would be a global penalty.

???? The second screenshot you posted, the hover text literally says "in another Leader's settlement".

We'll have to see how it plays out, but 20% for 10 turns in one city seems pretty minor, ban happiness from X luxuries minor.

I'd hope they get stronger tbh. I prefer expensive/rare but significant imho, instead of tons of minor policies/boosts that may or may not add up over time

 

[ggmoyang]

Yeah, I also like the look of this. Probably because I like to play diplomatically, so having more options on how to work that is always going to appeal to me. Tired of the days of "hey my declared friend is now razing my city states and sending carpets of missionaries to erase my religion. Guess there's not much I can do about it!"

It's off-topic but I think you'd like new War support mechanic. You can now support a side in other civ's wars, and Shawnee have the ability of 'You can support other leaders' wars multiple times instead of once'.
Not sure about the effects of those war support though. Maybe it could cause war wariness, which reduces Production and Combat strength.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

On the contrary, I'm very excited about more meaningful diplomatic choices and the ability to hamper your rivals without going to war.

without going to war...

that is the problem... it seems everything is pointing towards more and more diplomatic solutions, that do not involve actual
WARFARE... sorry for the caps, but I'm starting to see a pattern here...

 

[ggmoyang]

???? The second screenshot you posted, the hover text literally says "in another Leader's settlement".

We'll have to see how it plays out, but 20% for 10 turns in one city seems pretty minor, ban happiness from X luxuries minor.

I'd hope they get stronger tbh. I prefer expensive/rare but significant imho, instead of tons of minor policies/boosts that may or may not add up over time

Well I'm not too keen about the English grammar, but if so, shouldn't be an article there? (I always make mistake with articles) But it doesn't say 'settlements' either.
But I can see it's probably affects a single settlement, the 'target' button would open a window to select a target settlement.

 

[Zaarin]

without going to war...

that is the problem... it seems everything is pointing towards more and more diplomatic solutions, that do not involve actual
WARFARE... sorry for the caps, but I'm starting to see a pattern here...

Nothing stops you from going to war, but diplomacy has been little more than, "Will you give me money for this thing I don't need?" since forever. More options are good.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Sanctions should be "prevent this player from trading resources from you" not "arbitrarily make another player's economy magically weaker"

What are they smoking???

 

[ggmoyang]

without going to war...

that is the problem... it seems everything is pointing towards more and more diplomatic solutions, that do not involve actual
WARFARE... sorry for the caps, but I'm starting to see a pattern here...

Oh you are right about that. I remember when PDX added monarch assassination mechanic in EU4. They had to remove the feature because every AI sent spy to the player and the player's king got killed too often. The game was really frustrating when the assassination was a thing.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Nothing stops you from going to war, but diplomacy has been little more than, "Will you give me money for this thing I don't need?" since forever. More options are good.

When these diplomats options are easy to obtain one's goal, up to a point where war is no longer a viable option entirely phasing it out,
why would the Ai even try to be threat to you or other Ai? It will be an unsurmountable mountain of boring texts and notifications that will
interrupt the gameplay each turn, when there should be some ACTION on the map. Skirmish battles, whatever that actually involves killing each other in a physical manner... cleaning a map zone from enemy influence by erasing every trace of their presence near or dangerously near...

If you allow every scout on the map to come near your capital, and freely roam near your resources, you can expect that sooner or later, a settler will pop up and try snatch this or that tile. I will simply kill them all and prevent that. Ai should do the same.

No diplomacy in the world will prevent someone to try and snatch a diamonds mine if given the opportunity.
Try that in civ 3. You will get obliterated to smithereens if you only come near a diamond resource already discovered by an enemy that is garrisoning the tiles where the settler will have to go...

Let say by these sanctions, one civ will no longer be able to build settlers... Idk, it's just an hypothesis but I see no end to bad consequences to inevitably endless ramifications of this or that sanction. Hinder agriculture... it seems to me overly powerful in that regard already, don't even knowing how that means, if it's in Antiquity, I can smell fire on an harbour from the distance... to me it's an act of war, and should require a unit to perform that...

 

[rocksinmypath]

Now imagine AIs dogpiling on you, spamming these all kinds of hinder abilities. That's definitely not fun, I could see me ragequitting in a such instance.

If the AI dogpiles on me because I've been a jerk the whole game, so be it. I'll rage quit that one time, but I'll learn to be nicer next time. If this makes being a warmongering psychopath less optimal, I'm all for it.

If the AI is dogpiling on me just because I'm winning, that's a different story.

 

[Harasar]

These hinders remind me of spy's actions in Civ 6. Maybe in Civ 7 espionage and diplomacy are merged, or maybe espionage is still exists and you need to first establish your spy or some sort of influence in other player's city, before you can take action and cause some damage to it. Maybe hinders would also have probability of success, and it can fail and you reduced relationships with other civ without actually causing them any damage.

 

[bbbt]

Well I'm not too keen about the English grammar, but if so, shouldn't be an article there? (I always make mistake with articles) But it doesn't say 'settlements' either.
But I can see it's probably affects a single settlement, the 'target' button would open a window to select a target settlement.

You don't use an article on object if there's possessive on it: Ie The house, a house, Bob's house (confusingly, you can add an article to the possessive noun, ie: The man's house - but in that case The is for man, not house).

 

[Thormodr]

Seems a bit weird if you are self sufficient in food. Unless they are implying that your food surplus includes importing food.