Diplomatic Victory

[Supr49er]

In BTS, if you can vote yourself to victory all on your own (without vassals), the option does not come up anymore, thus making it more true to the ´diplomatic´idea, as opposed to just a pseudo-conquest...

This caught me by surprise the first time.

Welcome to Apolyton LeonDeV.

[joncnunn]

If you let your defeated opponents capitulate to you rather than wipe them out, then diplomatic victory still amounts to a defacto domination victory.
(If everybody is your vassal, you'll immediately be credited with a conquest victory without needing to vote.)

[sorinache]

Never managed a Diplomatic victory above "noble" difficulty. Has anyone ?
I don't pay enough attention to the mutual relationships among AI civ and have a tendency to be greedy and trade with everybody that agrees to it. Invariably, I get negative points for "trading with worst enemy" ... Which btw I think is kinda disproportionate : most european countries trade with Cuba and Iran, US "worst enemies" yet that only damages their relationships with the US a little bit ... In BtS it is easily the biggest drag on diplomatic relations

[wodan11]

Never managed a Diplomatic victory above "noble" difficulty. Has anyone ?

Yes. Did a religion game where I founded I think 6 of them, and aggressively spread one religion only.

[Blaupanzer]

I turn diplo victory off, to avoid an exploit regarding the AP. Also, what is the likelihood that actually free states would elect another, leader of the world. Less than zero, as these are fighting words. The main loss in turning it off is no AP with the hammer bonus and religious wars and no UN to dictate open borders, ban nukes, and so on.

[wodan11]

I turn diplo victory off, to avoid an exploit regarding the AP.

Isn't that denying yourself the AP and UN gameplay?

Also, what is the likelihood that actually free states would elect another, leader of the world. Less than zero, as these are fighting words.

Pretty likely. Consider Rome with Caesar.

[Blaupanzer]

Being as dominant as Rome triggered several civil wars, a feature not available on BTS.

[Ming]

I'm not a big fan of diplo victories either, and almost always turn that victory condidtion off.
First, they can be real easy wins. And even worse, when an AI wins even though you have an incredible lead.
Second, I find the AP and the UN annoying with all of the demands and conditions. Nothing worse than being told what you should do or face a silly penality. yeah, I know, build them yourself and control them, but that makes for boring game and forces you to get them early, limiting other things you can do.
But most importantly, I'm not thrilled how the vassel system works. I enjoy the concept, and love the idea of colonies... but unfortunately, they are flawed. When you are beating some civ into a pulp, and all of a sudden you are at war with somebody else (or peace) because the slime ball weak civ becomes somebodies elses vassel... this sucks. Especially when it occurs as you are marching on the one city you really want.

[Blaupanzer]

As Ming said. Also your forces are suddenly transported from their invading positions to a point where they cannot reach home because of closed borders. These guys will have to pull the Greek trick of fighting their way out of Anatolia in the post-Alexander period or the Czechs in WWI fighting their way across Russia to escape the Commies. All because the stupid enemy agreed to become a vassal of one of your invading partners, quite possibly one that you bribed to join in. Thus, no vassals is selected as well as no diplo victory.

[wodan11]

I frequently turn off vassals but leave diplo on.

[wodan11]

First, they can be real easy wins.

So can culture, or spaceship.

And even worse, when an AI wins even though you have an incredible lead.

Same thing can happen with culture, domination, or spaceship.

Seems to me you're defining "an incredible lead" in terms of a different VC (probably domination). For example, perhaps I have an incredible lead toward a culture victory.

Looking at things that way puts an entirely different spin on your statement.

Second, I find the AP and the UN annoying with all of the demands and conditions. Nothing worse than being told what you should do or face a silly penality.

The UN is extremely poor game design. However, the AI rarely builds it so the player can avoid it by simply not building it himself.

[rah]

The AI however does target the AP. WHichis probably broken worse than the UN.

Yes, I usually turn off diplo and vassels. IT is a shame because they both offer considerable promise.

[Blaupanzer]

Agree on the promise. But both are not there in this iteration. BTS is so much better than any other civ version, I just turn off the nonsense and play on.

The AP has a significant glitch. If the AI hits the jackpot based on their location and interactions, you will scream, then turn the option off permanently, trust me.

[wodan11]

Rah, why do you feel AP is broken?

Blaupanzer, what, exactly, is the "jackpot"?

[rah]

In my opinion, all diplomacy is broken.
My example.
I get no credit for being in a war when asked to join another. I want an option when asked if I want to join a war, that I'm already in a war, if you'd support me in my war, I'd be more than happy to support you in yours.
As it is, as soon as I go to war, other civs start asking. "A" who doesn't like me asks be to join against B who is pleased with me, so Of course I say no. A negative against A but I feel I should get a postive against B for not going to war against him, but instead, the same turn B comes and asks for me to go to war with A. I'm already stretched so I can't say yes, and now there's a negative. This has happened when a and b weren't even at war with each other. That is wacked.
I would love a "why don't you give me 10 turns to gear up and I"ll join your war" or
"hey after you declare war, I give it more thought"
I believe every diplo discision should have a + and a - , That's how diplomacy works in the real world. It doesn't in civ. And the AP and UN just exagerate the problem.

And don't say, "well just build it yourself"
1. I don't like going down dead end paths
2. If every game is rushing to build the AP, that eliminates a lot of the variety to the game.
3. I enjoy a lot of warfare in my games. Nothing throws a wet blanket on it more than being ordered to give conquered cities back.


How often in the UN will your +20 diplo buddy help you? Granted I know they're trying to make sure you can't take advantage of it, and that you can't stay friendly with everyone, but the way they do it is not realistic.

THe funny thing is I find the holy war concept realistic, but it's like having that stack of 5 barb archers event show up right next to your cap early in the game when you have a single warrior defending. GAME OVER. It takes the fun out of the game, and we have to remember that it is just game.