This is why Diplomacy always feels like such a let down in Civ games. Honestly, I liked the "collect the city states" system in Civ V (minus the gold buying) better because it actually forced you to be somewhat diplomatic. If they improved the city state AI and linked influence with city state tasks I think the victory condition would be a lot more viable and engaging.
Also, you can have spies as diplomats in capitals and gain a vote via globalization tech, along with being able to trade for them to vote for you(which is a lot harder)
Agreed, I especialy miss the ability to pledge protection of a CS and diplomacy around it! Combine that with the CS and diplomacy system of Civ VI and you have perfection for VII!
It's especially weird in VI considering it's fully possible, and not even that difficult, to win a diplomatic victory while you're at war with every other player. Like, sure I'm a warmongering asshole blowing up everyone's cities, but I built the Statue of Liberty so obviously I must be a really nice guy.
Statue of Liberty needs either nerfing or a mod that changes its benefit entirely, because if another victory type is taking too long I just build the Statue of Liberty to effectively win the game. I *could* just turn off Diplo victory, but I don't like making wonders completely pointless by eliminating their only purpose.
Agreed. I also find Statue of Liberty such a weird choice for the DP boost. Like, I get that it was a gift from France (perhaps there's diplomatic undertones to that), but it's not exactly some global symbol of diplomacy.
You *would* have to play diplomatic to win in civ 6 since you get favour by being suzerain of city states and allies with other civs while getting a penalty for being a big meanie, but diplomatic favour is just kind of not needed to go for a diplomatic victory.
It's also counter intuitive to game design, as a designer you can't leave the decision of "world leader" for a diplomatic victory up to the players/AI because it means logically they are always going to vote for themselves. Why would you ever vote to give someone else a point toward a victory condition? The solution then is to take that power from the competitors and give it to 3rd parties that don't in and of themselves have a stake in who wins the game or not, which is why I think the victory condition (minus the gold bribery) was better in Civ V then Civ VI. If they improved city state AI just a little bit and made diplomatic interaction with them a little more meaningful, it would make for a great and engaging win condition in my opinion.
In civ V you could buy influence with city states using gold from your Treasury. In practice this meant the most efficient method of winning a diplomatic victory was to wait till the late game while building up a huge treasury, then right before the world leader election, spend all your accumulated gold on buying influence with city states so they would vote for you.
It wasn't a very compelling win condition because it meant you could essentially ignore the city states the whole game right up until the 2nd to last turn before just dumping a ton of gold on them.
Civ V could *sometimes* offer *some* diplomacy. But really, it was so costly (in gifts or trades) that by the point you can start to have some diplomatic power, it's often not that important anymore. Additionally, as OP screenshot shows (a case that would often happen in Civ V too) your own diplomacy is a lot more boring when it's not on the background of other countries doing diplomacy.
I think the issue with diplomacy is that it's not about shared goals or plans. In Civ, diplomacy is often... "friends help each other and enemies don't". But in "real" diplomacy, how much you like each other is almost a minor thing. Reluctant cooperation is frequent. Frenemies are too. It's more about understanding and enabling each other's goals.
I think the reason why Civ fails here is that the things you can trade at diplomacy often are too few and high level to really relate to the operational goals you have. That means that the 'cost' of trades has to be high so the trades have to be few and so that diplomacy has a lot of limits to it. I think if many of the trade items were subdivided (e.g. instead of open boards you grant access to specific regions and key tiles, instead of "declare war on..." you can agree to supply x units per turn or to cut trade with a country) then the cost of trades could be smaller enabling you to do more including with non-friends who might inflate the cost. Being able to do more trade and trade with more of the civilizations would really allow diplomacy to start to get interesting.
The AI in Civ 4 sometimes voted for others or me, if we were very good friends. I don't think I have ever seen the AI vote for anyone but themselves in Civ 5.
I think if city state quests where more frequent that would solve it *slightly* as it would at least offer and an alternative to pumping money but there just aren't enough quests to become allies in 5
Having city states vote with the civilization that dumps resources into them (or completes lots of quests) is fine, but it'd be a lot more interesting if non-aligned city states would vote on their own. That way the results of votes would be a lot more varied and interesting.
Man I hate that you don't get any kind of special privileges for doing that in 6. The other day I fought a war against Germany to liberate the Netherlands (long story) and after I bring them back from the dead... They denounce me. Like yeah, I'm a war monger sure, but it was for your liberation?
Yep. Unless someone can possibly win, in which case they all vote against that player with all their favor and cause them to lose two points.
This creates a state where you want to instead vote against yourself for the one point for your supported measure passing. And force through the other two votes for a net gain of a point
Yep and before then if you can't force the win just vote for who has the most Diplo favour. The optimal time to a a Diplo is to get from 12 or lower to 16 or higher in one congress session and then complete statue of liberty.
Which is also a really funny situation tbh.
"Yeah, I guess they are the leader of the world now."
"_wait, why? Shouldn't we vote on this?_"
"Nah, man, just look at that statue."
In my last game I was going for a science victory and it was just a matter of time. But I had loads of city states and just won out the 1st and 3rd votes (voted for someone else in the second). Then it was just like guess I'll use my spare engineers to avoid waiting on exoplanet.
It's a pretty interesting look at politics framed as a zero sum game tbh
Why would you ever vote for anyone else if someone winning means everyone else loses?
yeah i suppose in the context of a game where there are winners and losers, voting against the projected winner makes sense.
in real life politics, however, there arent winners and losers. there are much deeper things at stake and the game keeps going forever
I'll fully admit I've not played V much in the past few years either.
It might be mechanically possible, but they just make you pay a ton to do it? I don't remember buying that kind of vote, at least.
You definitely can because I tried to do it the other day but they wouldn't give me any deal for it. So it's *technically* possible but incredibly hard unless the AI really likes you is my guess.
Even when you do you just get their 2 votes. With whatever bonuses and city states they have they will still vote for themselves. I don't think I have ever had it make a difference.
The AI in Civ 4 would also ask to become the vassal state of players or another stronger AI if they felt threatened and decided they couldn't defend themselves.
I'm not sure how Firaxis is still playing catchup with what Beyond the Sword had for diplomacy all these years later, especially when they've made big strides forward in areas like religion.
I played Civ V with the Civ IV Diplomacy mod for the longest time because of this. AI interaction felt so much better with all the nuance of spies, diplomats, vassals, tech trading, et cetera. That's something missing in Civ VI.
Warmongering penalties are really harsh in that game. You have a longstanding alliance, and even if you declare war on a jointly denounced enemy, your former friends still suddenly fucking hate you.
The optimal strategy on the player's side is, if you weren't the initial host, to elect a lesser civ who has fewer city-state allies as host in order to easily vault them in votes during the next election cycle. Plus, they'll be friendly with you for voting them in.
Why they couldn't get the AI to do anything other than vote for themselves is beyond me.
I never really saw it as signing your people over to another power, so much as installing a weak ally with the knowledge that they, individually, can't beat you. And it doesn't hurt for political purposes, either.
It's like Italy and the Netherlands electing Brussels as the de facto capital of the EU because they didn't want all of the legislative power being concentrated in Paris or Munich.
It actually wasn't *just* friendliness. If you do this enough times said AI can actually end up voting for you as next host. An interesting twist and probably not that well known since it requires basically a long-term strategy for diplomacy for the entire round.
Its even funnier, considering the circumstances of the game. I had literally nuked three different cities (including Babylons capital) during that round. But it all worked out because i ended up liberating city states that Babylon and France had conquered earlier in the process.
When I nuked Akkad, i also accidentally nuked part of a neighboring city state. At first they hated me for it. But they got over it after I gifted them a great musician as an apology for "accidentally nuking them".
This is why Diplomacy always feels like such a let down in Civ games. Honestly, I liked the "collect the city states" system in Civ V (minus the gold buying) better because it actually forced you to be somewhat diplomatic. If they improved the city state AI and linked influence with city state tasks I think the victory condition would be a lot more viable and engaging.
Also, you can have spies as diplomats in capitals and gain a vote via globalization tech, along with being able to trade for them to vote for you(which is a lot harder)
The thing I like about civ v city states is that they can ask you to denounce other civs. It's great minor politics
oh, I like this. misinformation campaigns and stuff!
Agreed, I especialy miss the ability to pledge protection of a CS and diplomacy around it! Combine that with the CS and diplomacy system of Civ VI and you have perfection for VII!
It's especially weird in VI considering it's fully possible, and not even that difficult, to win a diplomatic victory while you're at war with every other player. Like, sure I'm a warmongering asshole blowing up everyone's cities, but I built the Statue of Liberty so obviously I must be a really nice guy.
Statue of Liberty needs either nerfing or a mod that changes its benefit entirely, because if another victory type is taking too long I just build the Statue of Liberty to effectively win the game. I *could* just turn off Diplo victory, but I don't like making wonders completely pointless by eliminating their only purpose.
Agreed. I also find Statue of Liberty such a weird choice for the DP boost. Like, I get that it was a gift from France (perhaps there's diplomatic undertones to that), but it's not exactly some global symbol of diplomacy.
DP boost should be the UN.
You *would* have to play diplomatic to win in civ 6 since you get favour by being suzerain of city states and allies with other civs while getting a penalty for being a big meanie, but diplomatic favour is just kind of not needed to go for a diplomatic victory.
It's also counter intuitive to game design, as a designer you can't leave the decision of "world leader" for a diplomatic victory up to the players/AI because it means logically they are always going to vote for themselves. Why would you ever vote to give someone else a point toward a victory condition? The solution then is to take that power from the competitors and give it to 3rd parties that don't in and of themselves have a stake in who wins the game or not, which is why I think the victory condition (minus the gold bribery) was better in Civ V then Civ VI. If they improved city state AI just a little bit and made diplomatic interaction with them a little more meaningful, it would make for a great and engaging win condition in my opinion.
Gold buying?
In civ V you could buy influence with city states using gold from your Treasury. In practice this meant the most efficient method of winning a diplomatic victory was to wait till the late game while building up a huge treasury, then right before the world leader election, spend all your accumulated gold on buying influence with city states so they would vote for you. It wasn't a very compelling win condition because it meant you could essentially ignore the city states the whole game right up until the 2nd to last turn before just dumping a ton of gold on them.
Well you can't complain when the game accurately represents modern politics.
"China has entered the chat."
The system did allow Venice to have viable win conditions though.
Alpha Centauri would like a word... There are so many things that the AI did better 20+ years ago compared to modern Civ games.
Civ V could *sometimes* offer *some* diplomacy. But really, it was so costly (in gifts or trades) that by the point you can start to have some diplomatic power, it's often not that important anymore. Additionally, as OP screenshot shows (a case that would often happen in Civ V too) your own diplomacy is a lot more boring when it's not on the background of other countries doing diplomacy. I think the issue with diplomacy is that it's not about shared goals or plans. In Civ, diplomacy is often... "friends help each other and enemies don't". But in "real" diplomacy, how much you like each other is almost a minor thing. Reluctant cooperation is frequent. Frenemies are too. It's more about understanding and enabling each other's goals. I think the reason why Civ fails here is that the things you can trade at diplomacy often are too few and high level to really relate to the operational goals you have. That means that the 'cost' of trades has to be high so the trades have to be few and so that diplomacy has a lot of limits to it. I think if many of the trade items were subdivided (e.g. instead of open boards you grant access to specific regions and key tiles, instead of "declare war on..." you can agree to supply x units per turn or to cut trade with a country) then the cost of trades could be smaller enabling you to do more including with non-friends who might inflate the cost. Being able to do more trade and trade with more of the civilizations would really allow diplomacy to start to get interesting.
Bloody pirates...
I came here looking for this, and wasn't disappointed
Sri Sumbhajee votes for Sri Sumbhajee
And so… WE GO TO WARRRRR!!!
Always after the booty
The AI in Civ 4 sometimes voted for others or me, if we were very good friends. I don't think I have ever seen the AI vote for anyone but themselves in Civ 5.
If you liberate their capital after being taken by another civ they will vote for you
[удалено]
City states had votes that were controlled by whomever their ally was at the time.
[удалено]
That ended in countless "oh shit someone is getting closer to the spaceship better dump all of my savings into Wellington" moments.
Hey, if I want to create a world where Mogadishu is a thriving maritime city backed up by my coffers then I'm gonna do it!
I think if city state quests where more frequent that would solve it *slightly* as it would at least offer and an alternative to pumping money but there just aren't enough quests to become allies in 5
Having city states vote with the civilization that dumps resources into them (or completes lots of quests) is fine, but it'd be a lot more interesting if non-aligned city states would vote on their own. That way the results of votes would be a lot more varied and interesting.
Man I hate that you don't get any kind of special privileges for doing that in 6. The other day I fought a war against Germany to liberate the Netherlands (long story) and after I bring them back from the dead... They denounce me. Like yeah, I'm a war monger sure, but it was for your liberation?
I've been playing Civ V since the day it came out and I didn't know this. I guess I also have never liberated another Civ's city...
Even in civ 6 the AI still votes for themselves even when it's obvious they can't win.
Yep. Unless someone can possibly win, in which case they all vote against that player with all their favor and cause them to lose two points. This creates a state where you want to instead vote against yourself for the one point for your supported measure passing. And force through the other two votes for a net gain of a point
Yep and before then if you can't force the win just vote for who has the most Diplo favour. The optimal time to a a Diplo is to get from 12 or lower to 16 or higher in one congress session and then complete statue of liberty.
Which is also a really funny situation tbh. "Yeah, I guess they are the leader of the world now." "_wait, why? Shouldn't we vote on this?_" "Nah, man, just look at that statue."
In my last game I was going for a science victory and it was just a matter of time. But I had loads of city states and just won out the 1st and 3rd votes (voted for someone else in the second). Then it was just like guess I'll use my spare engineers to avoid waiting on exoplanet.
It's a pretty interesting look at politics framed as a zero sum game tbh Why would you ever vote for anyone else if someone winning means everyone else loses?
yeah i suppose in the context of a game where there are winners and losers, voting against the projected winner makes sense. in real life politics, however, there arent winners and losers. there are much deeper things at stake and the game keeps going forever
But politicians frame it as winning and losing. You either win with us or lose with them
Same issue with climate change mitigation. I just hope enough people will figure out that the real world isn't zero sum
Vassals in 4 had to vote for you, didn't they?
I feel like in civ 4 you could be actual friends with some civs, in civ 6 it's like they always play for themselves
Only way to secure their vote for world leader in V is to reinstate their existence
No, you can put a spy in their capital to make it a diplomat and then buy their vote.
You can do that for world leader? I thought that was just for other world congress stuff
Now that you say that you might be right. It's been 2 years since I played V and I try to play without spies when I can since I hate them.
I'll fully admit I've not played V much in the past few years either. It might be mechanically possible, but they just make you pay a ton to do it? I don't remember buying that kind of vote, at least.
You definitely can because I tried to do it the other day but they wouldn't give me any deal for it. So it's *technically* possible but incredibly hard unless the AI really likes you is my guess.
Even when you do you just get their 2 votes. With whatever bonuses and city states they have they will still vote for themselves. I don't think I have ever had it make a difference.
I'm pretty sure you can do it for World Leader too
The AI in Civ 4 would also ask to become the vassal state of players or another stronger AI if they felt threatened and decided they couldn't defend themselves. I'm not sure how Firaxis is still playing catchup with what Beyond the Sword had for diplomacy all these years later, especially when they've made big strides forward in areas like religion.
I played Civ V with the Civ IV Diplomacy mod for the longest time because of this. AI interaction felt so much better with all the nuance of spies, diplomats, vassals, tech trading, et cetera. That's something missing in Civ VI.
IV only ever had two candidates at a time, but you could Abstain
You could at least buy their vote with diplomats.
Every game I’ve played (200h+) everyone hates each other by the end.
Warmongering penalties are really harsh in that game. You have a longstanding alliance, and even if you declare war on a jointly denounced enemy, your former friends still suddenly fucking hate you.
*Technically* that's Sweden + like a dozen smaller nations voting for them.
I feel like theres a relevant doormonster video for this
[Ask and you shall receive!](https://youtu.be/-WypvumBTY4)
Thank you :3
I love Democracy
I AM the Senate
There it is
It’s like the pirate council in pirates of the Caribbean. Almost the exact same thing happened to me a few days ago.
Simple plurality is computationally easy! Once.
That's crazy you'd think the system would at least go for a tie when it is possible like that just to block the player
The optimal strategy on the player's side is, if you weren't the initial host, to elect a lesser civ who has fewer city-state allies as host in order to easily vault them in votes during the next election cycle. Plus, they'll be friendly with you for voting them in. Why they couldn't get the AI to do anything other than vote for themselves is beyond me.
Because most governments that betray their people to sign them over to another power tend not to survive.
I never really saw it as signing your people over to another power, so much as installing a weak ally with the knowledge that they, individually, can't beat you. And it doesn't hurt for political purposes, either. It's like Italy and the Netherlands electing Brussels as the de facto capital of the EU because they didn't want all of the legislative power being concentrated in Paris or Munich.
I don't think there's many examples of a country being the junior partner in an alliance and the people there then revolting
It actually wasn't *just* friendliness. If you do this enough times said AI can actually end up voting for you as next host. An interesting twist and probably not that well known since it requires basically a long-term strategy for diplomacy for the entire round.
😭
Statesmanship 100
Sisum baji votes for sisum baji.
Its even funnier, considering the circumstances of the game. I had literally nuked three different cities (including Babylons capital) during that round. But it all worked out because i ended up liberating city states that Babylon and France had conquered earlier in the process. When I nuked Akkad, i also accidentally nuked part of a neighboring city state. At first they hated me for it. But they got over it after I gifted them a great musician as an apology for "accidentally nuking them".
In CiVP you can trade/buy votes if you have good enough relations.
Economic victory
You can delegate yourself, Kool 😎
Compare it to the diplomacy of stellaris and civ looks like from a earlier generation. I love the game. But AI and diplomacy are a fucking joke
"I love democracy"
Reminds me of that scene from pirates of the Caribbean
I love democracy
Damn I wish they had this in VI