[GS] You shouldn’t be able to trade diplomatic favor

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It's even beyond just relationship is bad - I think there's still some 'hidden' warmongering or 'you are winning' (at least militarily) calculation, as I've had allies - who I have no warmonger penalty with in theory as I've been joint warring with them the whole time - offer me a pittance for luxuries. When usually they would offer me a lot if I were in a peaceful game.

I'm quite sure the price the AI Leaders will offer for your Luxuries in Civ 6 is not dependent on your relationship with them. It's based solely on their internal need for more amenities. Since their internal need changes continually, the price they will offer changes, both from game to game and turn to turn in the same game.

 

[bbbt]

I'm quite sure the price the AI Leaders will offer for your Luxuries in Civ 6 is not dependent on your relationship with them. It's based solely on their internal need for more amenities. Since their internal need changes continually, the price they will offer changes, both from game to game and turn to turn in the same game.

That's definitely part of it - Scotland is always the 'highest offer' on my luxes for example as he most be coded to prioritize amenities with the UA.

I'm also thinking of what price they ask for their spare luxes though. I feel like an ally when I'm being peaceful will be happy usually to do a one to one of spare luxes or ask a minimal price, but an ally when I'm warmongering - even when I don't have any warmongering points with them will want ridiculous amounts of cash for their spares.

 

[NukeAJS]

What? Why not? Just because it's not tangible doesn't mean it can't be traded?

"We want 10 gold per turn; in return, we'll have our diplomats/spies/politicians/businesspeople support whatever you choose"

That'd be in a diplomatic favor per turn type agreement.

In a lump sum style it'd be: "We want this resource; in return, we'll give you half the support you need to become the secretary general effective immediately."

Basically, you're trading favors. I don't see why this is a problem. Maybe, though, any diplomatic favor can be taken back whenever they want if it hasn't already been used. I'd be like promising to do/support something, and then changing your mind. Obviously, this would have to have some consequences. When countries back out of their agreements and no one has been violating it, it causes massive trust problems.

I'm sure you can think of a modern day country that's been breaking agreements even though everyone else has been abiding by them; and, as a result, no one trusts any of their diplomats, generals, business people, or spies. Think real hard ... ... ...

 

[Ivan Hunger]

We appear to know the main ways to generate favours: alliances plus suzerainships.

We don't yet know how they're used up.

Until we do, I'm going to think of favours as "fruitcake": something the leaders trade amongst themselves but nobody ever consumes.

(Apologies in advance to people who actually eat holiday fruitcake. I didn't mean to offend either of you.)

Without knowing any of the details, the way I imagine it working is that diplomatic favor is never actually "spent". Instead the amount of votes everyone has in the world congress is proportional to the amount of diplomatic favor they have compared to each other. So, for example, if one player has twice as much diplomatic favor as everyone else, that player would have 2 votes in the world congress to everyone else's 1 vote.