No real diplomacy?

[Littleelven]

I feel like there is no diplomacy in this game. No vassals of other civs no real trading or deal making. Cant even trade gold? Am i missing something? I dont understand some of these decisions.

[Skull]

The things I miss in diplomacy is trading resources which you kindof get now and fleecing the AI I just gave the smackdown to for all their cash.

[Beans]

Trading resources seems to of been made automated for when you create a trade route. You can trade resources with another civ, you just need to establish a trade route and you can't really pick what you want. The trade screen you're probably thinking of is reserved strictly for peace negotiations is this game I think, but, it's still there.

From what I can tell, a lot of the diplomacy is through choosing to use influence points to establish alliances and trade or use your points to keep a war running. Also, there's a way to send vassals to city-states and befriend them.. I haven't looked it up, but, that's still in the game. I think the unit was just removed because it wasn't really necessary.

[plaguepenguin]

Yes, they got rid of the possibility of using the AI as your own ATM. Good riddance.

Deals between you and other civs, and the independent powers/city-states, are now run by the influence system

[martinolund]

You can setup a trade agreement that generates gold. If you read the tutorial tips around trading and diplomacy then you understand.

[Evil Onion]

I wish I could liberate an ally's city and give it back to them.

[TheZBillDyl]

I honestly really like the new diplomacy system. To me, diplomacy before just felt bad. This one, its super easy to use and seems useful for nearly everything.

[R.E.D]

Personally I feel its way to streamlined and somewhat boring, the idea is neat with influence I guess, but again it forces it into predictable paths. So execution make kind of predictable and boring after a few times, same thing spend influence get food or get gold what ever so, and the current balance of the game makes it kind of blah, there is some nuggets of good ideas with war support etc.

So maybe it will grow into a better system at some point but as a lot of other things needs a
more work and lots of balance.

Also what is it with the Civ leaders grunting all the time. And you are not looking at the leader, what the..... its obvious its some idea that its for multiplayer or something, or I think somebody played to much third person Fortnite. (Queue skin sales and battle pass). Or more likely the fact that if you don't show the leader how, you can not sell them for $10 bucks each. Some of the core choices in this game is baffling and insulting to the core/historic civ community. It does not bother some people good for them, but no wonder it gets reviewed negatively by a lot of players.

[aix_xpert]

There are some stupid decisions out there. Like why can I only counter-spy ONE civilization?And why can't I refuse trade deals from opposing merchants? I don't want my neighbor to have access to city bonuses from my Furs and Niter.

[DadouXIII]

Doesn't make sense for civs to trade resources in Civ 7 because you can open trade routes with their cities, and clone whatever resources is worked by those cities.
I do agree that it would be nice to be able to trade settlements outside of peace concessions.

[Skull]

Originally posted by aix_xpert:

There are some stupid decisions out there. Like why can I only counter-spy ONE civilization?And why can't I refuse trade deals from opposing merchants? I don't want my neighbor to have access to city bonuses from my Furs and Niter.

Good point. I’d rather it increase the amount of influence per civ I’m counter spying than not have the option.