World Congress Forces Change of Religion ???

[yeknod]

After building a mighty religion I was forced to change my religion by a weaker rival. My only option was to declare a Surprise War. Doing so results in all other nations receive 50 leverage. Waging war was not an option on these terms, the free leverage would have allowed rivals to decrease my War Score 10 times via Placate.

First: It is impossible to force an entire civilisation to change its religion in an instant.
Second: If World Congress is really dictating ideology, laws, and religion then this is no longer a game of competing Civilisations, it is a game of one world domination by a clique of diplomats.

If I reject a rival's demand to change my religion, then they are free to attack me and force me.

But if I must fight on lopsided terms to gain the right to keep a religion I spent a couple thousand years constructing then I am no longer a sovereign nation, merely a bystander of world opinion.

Humankind is broken.

[Ericus1]

I agree the the World Congress system is pretty poorly implemented/designed. It seems like they tried to take an idea that worked well in Civ 5, and then adapted it over - poorly.

Just imagine if in real life the UN dictated that China had to convert to Catholicism, or else go to war with most of the world. Like, lolz, no. And that fact that it interacts with the war system - something else largely panned and disliked - just makes it worse.

The only reason that major countries stay in the UN is because it is powerless to force change on them. Otherwise the moment they tried countries like the US, China, or Russia would simply abandon the UN. The UN is a tool for soft pressure and subtle change and global cooperation - not a hammer for forced implementation of policy.

[DNLH]

I don't know, gameplay-wise Congress did a lot to remove the late-game hugbox that pestered the base game once the mean AIs ran out of steam for aggressive expansion (conquering their continent, mostly). Maybe we could use the same system that we have for civics, where Congress can be denied for a hefty Influence price, but that one should definitely depend on the crisis grievances waved away that way, so sovereigns can't infinitely shrug off demands of freedom from their vassals.

The war system isn't bad, but it does need some further refining and some exploits patched (most notably some form of truce system would be nice, more cooldowns in general would be nice, even if people tend to dislike them). I like that the wars don't need to be necessarily won by might (although it does help), as I wrote in some other thread we could use some era-dependant modifier to which matters more for war support, so winning battles is almost all there is to it in early eras and it changes gradually as world advances.

All in all, I don't think Humankind Congress is broken, it's just much more powerful than anything to ever exist so it feels unintuitive, but I kind of expect it to be when it's place of meeting for immortal rulers. The trick is to keep others on your side and hoard the leverage, rather than using it up, so you can tip the scales in votes, especially ones that deeply concern you.

I could maybe see an ability to leave the Congress and becoming a pariah, abandoning the Ideology bonus, but that sounds like it could end up as its own, whole mechanic and I doubt we'll see anything change drastically in DLC content, they tend to be self-contained affairs.

[yeknod]

I'm not against having a World Congress, a World of Nations, or a United Nations. But at the UN the major powers have veto. World Congress shouldn't dictate something as important as a world power's religion. In my game I had the second highest Leverage of all the nations. I was by no means a miscreant. I may have been the strongest power but not disrespected. The game is mishandling the mechanics of the World Congress to such an extent the player cannot manage his own nation, set policies, laws, and determine religious freedoms. In effect the World Congress is the only power and the nations are mere provinces with some delegated authority but no sovereignty. So yes, Humankind is broken.

[Ericus1]

I juxtapose it to a comparison between the League of Nations versus the UN. With the League, they tried to make it a strong body that could enforce policy decisions and dictate to its member nations. What was the outcome? It was revealed to be a toothless paper tiger that the moment it tried to get in someone's way, they simply ignored them or left the League entirely, and it basically had zero credibility within 10 years.

Compare that to the UN, which has no enforcement mechanicisms whatsoever but is a body to facilitate international diplomacy and soft power. It may only be able to wag its finger, but it's lasted for 80 some-odd years now. If the entire world and all the security council really do agree about doing something about a rogue nation, it can provide a mandate under which major powers can act.

What we have in Humankind is some fantasy version of the LoN that would never, ever be able to functionally exist in a real world.

[yeknod]

Agree.