Reworking diplomatic incidents with a grievance and forgiving mechanic (+Allowing justified wars)

[viral star]

Just thought of an idea for a new grievance system after hearing some complaints about war favoring aggressive civs too much and also diplomatic incidents forcing negative relationship with leaders you want to ally with.

Here's how it could work:

• Instead of diplomatic incidents (like being forward settled, spied on, attacking your befriended IP) giving influence to the transgressed civ, they now gain a **grievance **against the offending civ.
  • A grievance gives the transgressed civ potential war support should war ever happen between the two civs, changing the initial war support when either civ declares war on each other.
  • Grievances can stack but are temporary, lasting 10-20 turns, but once war breaks out, the war support will last until the war ends.
  • This will give an advantage to "justified wars" and also discourage offending civs from declaring war on you.
• But if you want to keep friendly relations, you can also forgive grievances.
  • Forgiving a grievance removes the potential war support but gives you influence and increases your relationship with the offending civ, effectively countering the relationship penalty from the diplomatic incident.
    • This will help with maintaining friendly relations (like with Harriet Tubman) and gaining a diplomatic advantage by being a friendly and forgiving civ at the cost of losing potential war support for justified wars.

[scenic glacier]

I like this

[potent peak]

I like the direction of your suggestion. Diplomatic incidents are kinda at a weird place rn, where War Declarations are mostly from “I simply don’t like you” with just one diplomatic option to “heal” relations (also, I find it incredibly stupid that you can only run it with one civ each time)

[grave basin]

This would be a great way to fix diplomacy and war, which currently makes no distinction between the aggressor and the victim. It could be part of a larger change to war and alliances. Each war needs a distinction between the attacker and the defender, with the latter having an easier time summoning allies to war, and the attacker being unable to automatically draft their allies into the fight. They could also bring back things like asking your ally to declare joint war, and “give me ten turns to get ready.”

Anyway thoughts on balancing grievances. They stay fresh for 10 turns, then slowly decay at 1 point per turn. If we imagine they every point of minus relationship we used to get is worth 1 grievance, then for every 30 grievance, you get 1 war support, up to 3. I think this should come with a rebalance to adding war support, such that the cost of extra war support is now affected by existing war support instead of always starting at 60*age regardless of initial value. Asking allies to join your war should cost influence if you’re the aggressor. Asking non-allied players would be possible, with price depending on the relationship between them. If players refuse to forgive grievances initially, players may ask for forgiveness via diplomacy (reconciliation). If the other player accepts, they get influence AND cash. The other player may refuse for free.

[safe pendant]

Yeah I like this. +1 war support seems a little strong for being caught spying, but definitely a step in the right direction over the current system, so long as they expired quickly enough and there was no insane stacking potential. Biggest thing we need is just a way to forgive grievances so my relationship with the AI doesn't collapse because they did something I don't care about, so big yes to that

[bleak bane]

Bring back casus belli wars which should dictate initial war support

[safe pendant]

Yeah I was thinking about something like that after I wrote my initial comment. Like, instead of a grievance giving war support, it gives you like a ~5 turn window where you can declare a formal war even if you're not at -60, like them pissing you off gives justification for war

[ancient yew]

THIS: I actually like this idea, also have War Support be shifted based on your own actions: If you declare a War of Reclamation to take back a lost city, for example: if you take any OTHER cities you LOSE War support.

[viral star]

I wouldn't mind Casus Belli being added along with my grievance system idea

Some ideas I've thought of:

• War of Reclamation
  • Can only be declared on civs that have occupied any of your cities in the age
  • Gain +1 war support for every city they have taken from you in the age, up to +5 maximum
• War of Liberation
  • Can only be declared on civs that have occupied cities of your allies or suzerains in the age
  • Gain +2 war support
  • Cannot conquer any of the civ's occupied cities for yourself, must liberate them to original owners or independent people
• Holy War
  • Exploration age exclusive. Can only be declared on civs that have at least 3 settlements that follow your religion
  • Gain +1 war support, +1 war support for every missionary defeated on your territory (for both civs)
  • The victor gains a relic from winning this war
    Also I think having your settlement converted by another civ should give you a grievance against them (non-stackable), incentivizing revenge on civs that have converted your settlements, but they could gain an advantage if they convert enough of your cities

[potent peak]

The war of liberation should be extended to conquered city states as well

[viral star]

Just updated it to include your suggestion and more

[viral star]

Liberating settlements should definitely be a thing in Civ 7, I don't know why it isn't yet but it could give you influence and increase your relationship with the receiving civ or IP

[viral star]

Getting caught spying is already too punishing tbh. I think if they remove the 10 turn influence penalty from being caught, it could be balanced enough

[icy blade]

These actions costing influence would return some of influences power which diminishes too much in later ages as well as adding more depth

[kind fox]

I have a feeling we will get more diplomacy gameplay late game, like some ideology world bodies that you spend influence to interact with. So they don't need to make the individual diplomacy overtuned in the late game

[icy blade]

That would be cool

[oak wharf]

Humankind had this system and it was spammy and annoying in practice

[grave basin]

Spying as a whole needs some love. It feels so sterile in comparison to 6, where spies had names, upgrades, missions that depended on the city, and if caught, you could use them as bartering chips. In 7, spying is just “spend money, receive tech, maybe penalty.” That’s it, that’s all there is. All the various spy missions feel so weak that they’re not worth spending influence on. Open the gates? Convert target city? Waste of precious resources. Idk maybe I’m wrong and those missions are really cool. I guess I’ll have to do a playthrough where I focus on using them as much as possible.

[viral star]

Agreed. I think having spies as stealth units could be fun if implemented well. They could assassinate units, sabotage buildings, steal/smuggle resources, reveal other spies, and more. Maybe the potential 4th age could even have a spy commander

[elfin walrus]

I like this suggestion because co nflict seems really dry right now, capture cities for legacy point progression. Other games seem to do a much better job with a war support, grievance, casus belli systems. E.g. I really loved Aras retaliation war as a justification for going to war, and also their clear objectives for war.

[viral star]

Reworking diplomatic incidents with a grievance and forgiving mechanic (+Allowing justified wars)