One request that might balance the game: Civ V should have war weariness.

At the moment there is almost no economic punishment for being at war, and you can literally be at war the entire game. In civ IV there would be war weariness to fight which, if not handled propperly, could really hurt. There should always be a downside to war.

I think they will introduce this concempt with a revisitation of the entire happyness system (and puppeting) in a future expantion (or maybe a patch).

One request that might balance the game: Civ V should have war weariness. There should always be a downside to war.

One aspect of G&K will be a revamped diplomatic system. You will have to have good relations with a nation to sign a research agreement. Also the religion system and the impact of order/autocracy/freedom on diplomacy will also give players a reason to preserve a relationship with at least one other nation on the map.

War weariness + (nearly) permanent war with everyone if you declare more than once = very stupid system, no?

I think the system makes more sense now from a gameplay perspective. The game limits military success, not just having a state of war. Especially when the AI refuses even straight peace, war weariness is punitive to the unsuccessful warrior.

Hmm... I think there should be international trade routes which would fix it better. There are already enough happiness penalties.

Yeah, I'll agree with that. Some kind of economic reward for both parties who remain at peace.

War weariness + (nearly) permanent war with everyone if you declare more than once = very stupid system, no?

Yes, but that does not change the orginal point. It just means you would need to make changes to the diplomatic system as well to prevent that permanent war from being unavoidable (I believe some changes were coming up?).

One element I really liked from Civ3 was the concept of nationality and how it affected war weariness.

Cities you conquered affiliated with a certain nationality will get a war weariness boost if you are at war with their parent Civ.

Nationality as a cultural concept is really interesting IMHO, but too bad it's no longer in Civ5.

I really think we should have some kind of war weariness, but we need different factors to set the level of weariness.
If you are the defender you shouldn`t be punished too hard for being at war, likewise if you are winning.
Different goverments should also handle war weariness differently. Fascism, Monarhies and Communism should make it easier to be aggressive, while democracies gives you bonuses when being the defender.
Going down the piety tree should reflect religious wars, like increased weariness vs civs of same religion and reduced weariness when fighting civs with another religion.

There`s plenty of potential to make this system well in CiV.

There`s plenty of potential to make this system well in CiV.

I couldn't agree more

I really think we should have some kind of war weariness, but we need different factors to set the level of weariness.
If you are the defender you shouldn`t be punished too hard for being at war, likewise if you are winning.
Different goverments should also handle war weariness differently. Fascism, Monarhies and Communism should make it easier to be aggressive, while democracies gives you bonuses when being the defender.


The problem with your suggestions is I'm finding it hard to see what gameplay purpose it would serve. For example, if you can easily conquer most of the world, you can do so with no war weariness. However, if you are in a stalemate, you also have to deal with unhappiness. That makes warmongering an even easier path towards victory. Even worse, it makes wars designed to limit the power of a warmonger a bad idea. Instead, you should conquer them entirely and go for military victory even if you were previously going for something else.

I miss both international trade and war weariness from previous civs, but when it comes to war weariness it should have more to do with taking damage to your units and cities than how many turns you've been in a state of war. Having annexed cities w/o courthouses should increase WW modifiers, whereas being in a defensive war or pact war should decrease WW modifiers. Liberating a city would knock out a big chunk of WW, losing a Great General should add a big chunk.

...Also, maybe teach the AI not leave its GGs in the middle of a field with no units for 2 tiles in any direction.

It would definitely add some additional gusto to the game, and discourage successful "conquer half the known world in one go" wars, but I really don't know what the balance of the game is like currently, since the AI is just so awful at combat. Is it too easy to conquer the world in MP?

I suppose they could make it a compromise. Remember in Civ2 where your Senate (or Congress) would demand peace and you would suddenly be at peace? I wouldn't suggest that, but I could see something where, after a certain number of turns, you get a message saying the people want peace. Then you have to offer a peace deal. If the deal offered is either straight up or favorable to you and you don't accept it, you get unhappiness (that way you aren't punished for a stubborn AI). However, I would only have this if you've selected the Freedom policy.

I like being able to slowly advance in wars, and have epic battles that go on and on, even having gridlocks and such. With Machine guns and trench warfare in G&K, and longer battles with more HP, I hope there is no war weariness. Making peace more profitable through trade routes is a great idea.

I like being able to slowly advance in wars, and have epic battles that go on and on, even having gridlocks and such. With Machine guns and trench warfare in G&K, and longer battles with more HP, I hope there is no war weariness. Making peace more profitable through trade routes is a great idea.

In civ IV you could still fight endless wars with the proper setup (mount rushmore etc), war weariness doesn't need to make long wars impossible, just a bit more painful :) Maybe international trade routes would also do the trick, I definitely miss those.

How about make it work sort of like Civ4 cottages. In other words, it starts off with very little amount of gold and then increases to the point where you could make a substantial amount of gold per turn. Then war will break this.

War weariness is a system I really don't miss in Civ V... especially when I'm constantly being attacked in series by my "friendly" neighbors, war weariness would be complete hell.

one of the screenshots showed religion bonuses that were only applicable during peace

War weariness is a system I really don't miss in Civ V... especially when I'm constantly being attacked in series by my "friendly" neighbors, war weariness would be complete hell.

Well that's due the current dubious diplomatic system

War weariness + (nearly) permanent war with everyone if you declare more than once = very stupid system, no?

Gods and Kings will be more forgiving of wars, by some degree. Even still, a war weariness system should be adapted at some point. I feel that a war weariness system will make wars more objective minded, instead of full blown affairs that could conceivably last the entire game, or a large part of it. The AI and the human would have to make better military decisions based on the current capability of their empire at that time in the game.

Gods and Kings will be more forgiving of wars, by some degree.

Really? I never heard that, unless you're referring to the fact that civ's will no longer hold grudges from the dawn of time to the space age. Can you provide a link, unless that's what you're talking about?

And constant war is punished in that: massive armies are difficult to sustain for long periods of time, rapid conquests will make your civ unhappy, and diplomacy is more difficult (I'm sure there's other reasons, but those are the key ones for me). So although the method of imposing "war weariness" is different from in other civ's, it's still there. Remember that in previous Civ games, their was no happiness meter, and therefore war weariness had to be imposed as a penalty in and of itself. Now citizens still get weary and unhappy during wartime, but it's a little more nuanced.

Really? I never heard that, unless you're referring to the fact that civ's will no longer hold grudges from the dawn of time to the space age. Can you provide a link, unless that's what you're talking about?

No, there will be wars based on religion first, and then later wars based on ideology. So in other words, when the game gets to around the Renaissance, how civs feel about each other religion wise will start to wane. Later with the the choice of social ideology (Freedom, Order, Autocracy), along with espionage, the game will have a more "Cold War" feel about it. Civs will fall into three different blocks.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned wars will be a bit more forgiving, or at least potentially so. Along with the fact that grudges will not be all encompassing for the entire game. Anyway, this is not new information. This has been mentioned in several articles, interviews, and discussed in several threads. I am very surprised you have been in the dark about this all of this time. :confused:

Here is a link to a recent interview with Ed Beach.

http://www.gamereactor.eu/grtv/?id=29201 Around 3:50, and 6:24 in they talk about religion, diplomacy etc. He talks about "the changing nature of diplomatic relations through history", within the game, a much needed change IMO. And just think after you watch, you'll be all caught up with the rest of us. It'll be great!;)

NO THANK YOU, no, no, nononono.

Unhappiness already doesn't affect the AI like it does the human player. All this would do is cripple the human player. You already face happiness issues if you go on a puppeting spree, i.e. I just don't get what this proposal would accomplish.

NO THANK YOU, no, no, nononono.

Unhappiness already doesn't affect the AI like it does the human player. All this would do is cripple the human player. You already face happiness issues if you go on a puppeting spree, i.e. I just don't get what this proposal would accomplish.

With the changes to diplomacy, perhaps the same system present in the game for war weariness, will work just fine. I really have no problem with it. The war weariness idea is speculation anyway, there has been no mention of a change to the current happiness system. I mean in the present game, you can stay at war for long periods, but you have only so much happiness for conquering. Truly I am used to that part of the game. The huge issue is diplomacy and the AI. That's why they are concentrating those issues for this expansion. :)

Gods and Kings will be more forgiving of wars, by some degree. Even still, a war weariness system should be adapted at some point. I feel that a war weariness system will make wars more objective minded, instead of full blown affairs that could conceivably last the entire game, or a large part of it. The AI and the human would have to make better military decisions based on the current capability of their empire at that time in the game.

OK, I think that's a good argument for why to bring it back. It would also help the AI, who is likely to stay in "war mode" and build units when there's no realistic threat of attack.

So here is my proposal:

War wariness affects global happiness over time. It is diminished if they declared war on you or you are in Autocracy or Order. However, being successful in battle will not diminish it. Finally, each turn you offer a straight up peace treaty, war weariness will diminish.

That way this won't reward military conquest and it won't punish you for being stuck in a war you can't get out of.

I think war weariness should decrease the AI`s "black knight syndrome". I believe the AI lacks a will to survive which kicks in when the war is sure to be lost. Any civ should at some point be forced to surrender and make peace when resistance is futile and jeopardises the existence of the civ.
Think of Japan at the final stage of WW2, they had a mindset that didn`t allow war weariness, yet the opted for surrender and survival when all hopes were lost after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In Civ I may stand with a massive army right outside an enemy capital, and they still do not surrender. In that particular instance I believe the people should revolt and accept the peace offering, simply to survive and live to fight another day.
In return I believe an agressor who declines a surrender and keeps fighting to conquer a beaten enemy should receive a massive diplo hit from all civs, except their allies.

No, there will be wars based on religion first, and then later wars based on ideology. So in other words, when the game gets to around the Renaissance, how civs feel about each other religion wise will start to wane. Later with the the choice of social ideology (Freedom, Order, Autocracy), along with espionage, the game will have a more "Cold War" feel about it. Civs will fall into three different blocks.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned wars will be a bit more forgiving, or at least potentially so. Along with the fact that grudges will not be all encompassing for the entire game. Anyway, this is not new information. This has been mentioned in several articles, interviews, and discussed in several threads. I am very surprised you have been in the dark about this all of this time.


Just watched that whole video (I actually never watched it before, somehow, so thanks for that link). But nowhere in that video (or anywhere else, to my knowledge) did it say anything about religious or ideological wars, he just said that that those things affect diplomacy. I suppose that means it could lead to wars, but that doesn't seem to be the focus. In other words, I never heard him say that one civ would declare war on another just for the sake of religion. Furthermore, I don't see how that makes the war system more forgiving? (Although I do see how that applies to your other bit, about how civs don't hold grudges the whole game. That really will make warring while maintaining diplomatic relations a little easier.)

We don't know exactly what the changes to the diplomacy system are except that it's supposedly "better", so I think it's premature to assert that it will really be any better than the current system. We can hope, but I'm not holding my breath.

Claims like "the AI is better" and "the game will run faster" I will not believe until I see it for myself. Patches that claimed to do both or either often actually did the opposite.

We don't know exactly what the changes to the diplomacy system are except that it's supposedly "better", so I think it's premature to assert that it will really be any better than the current system. We can hope, but I'm not holding my breath.

Claims like "the AI is better" and "the game will run faster" I will not believe until I see it for myself. Patches that claimed to do both or either often actually did the opposite.

Also "better" can be subjective. What one might believe as a change for the better could also be viewed as a change for the worse for someone else (and vice-versa). In my view, adding and/or changing civs, techs, buildings, wonders and units are all natural changes that are typically better (i.e., adding more diversity and choices). Adding new systems or mechanics may not be, esp. if they give us even more of an advantage over the AI in their usage.

We don't know exactly what the changes to the diplomacy system are except that it's supposedly "better", so I think it's premature to assert that it will really be any better than the current system. We can hope, but I'm not holding my breath.

Claims like "the AI is better" and "the game will run faster" I will not believe until I see it for myself. Patches that claimed to do both or either often actually did the opposite.

Well put. The new mechanics actually do sound like they have potential, but I refuse to get excited until I am actually playing a game and can notice the AI's improvements. I am still afraid that upon entering the Rennaissance, the AI will suddenly all start liking me again because in the course of one turn, they suddenly decided to stop caring about religious differences. And the Social Policy blocs could also be interesting, but only if Autocracy and Order are improved hugely. Otherwise, I will still be picking Freedom and hoping for the best, which doesn't sound like a very fun mechanic.

The secret to war weariness would be to apply it only in enemy territory.

For example, every attack I make in nonfriendly territory applies X amount of weariness. Attack in friendly territory does not apply weariness. Considering the system already can apply bonuses and penalties for attacking in friendly/non-friendly territory, this seems like an easy thing to implement.

So aggressors are penalized while defenders gain an increasing advantage since they are not affected by weariness.

In return I believe an agressor who declines a surrender and keeps fighting to conquer a beaten enemy should receive a massive diplo hit from all civs, except their allies.

This is already in the game as the warmonger penalty. I believe it applies after you wipe out a civ from the game completely, though sometimes it doesn't show up straight away. More warlike civs don't care if you're a warmonger as long as you're not close to them.

he just said that that those things affect diplomacy. I suppose that means it could lead to wars, but that doesn't seem to be the focus.

:lol: I figured your response would be something similar to that. Well no one really knows yet. However, if religion does affect diplomacy and one religion has a potential to not like another due to conflicting interests, then there is a distinct possibility for war. It is not a foregone conclusion though this will be the result of diplomacy.

After civs get into idealogical blocs, there could be some discord there as well. Don't you think? Which could lead to wars.

The fact remains that wars caused by religious differences will go by the wayside as time goes on. They are not going ot last the entire game. Also, your very good friends in the medieval era may become your enemy later in the game due to differing ideologies. The result is more realistic and interesting diplomacy system with an air of unpredictability, due to religion, ideologies, intrigue, and espionage. Instead of the same old result game after game, like it is now. ;) I know that today from playing Fall of the Samurai. In that game the AI knows it, if you besiege a city and wait a turn, the AI will come out an attack. CiV AI needs to learn that as well.


So here is my proposal:

War wariness affects global happiness over time. It is diminished if they declared war on you or you are in Autocracy or Order. However, being successful in battle will not diminish it. Finally, each turn you offer a straight up peace treaty, war weariness will diminish.

That way this won't reward military conquest and it won't punish you for being stuck in a war you can't get out of.

So are you saying if your in Autocracy or Order and are the defender, war weariness will diminish? Or are you saying if your in Autocracy or Order and are the agressor, war weariness will diminish?

The rest sounds logical, and the part if they declare war on you.

I wanted to say one thing. The side that is losing the war should accumulate more war weariness. For the side thats winning it should diminish. People love victories. That's why Napoleon said, "France will follow me to the stars if I give her another victory!" That also means the AI needs to be more aggressive and be able to capture cities, and not be on the defensive so much. Because Napoleon also said, "The side that stays within it fortifications........is beaten!"

So are you saying if your in Autocracy or Order and are the defender, war weariness will diminish? Or are you saying if your in Autocracy or Order and are the agressor, war weariness will diminish?

I'm saying that you get less war weariness no matter what if you have autocracy or order and you also get less war weariness if you are defending. I realize it doesn't make sense to reward the military policies, but it's a concession to historical flavor.

I wanted to say one thing. The side that is losing the war should accumulate more war weariness. For the side thats winning it should diminish. People love victories. That's why Napoleon said, "France will follow me to the stars if I give her another victory!" That also means the AI needs to be more aggressive and be able to capture cities, and not be on the defensive so much. Because Napoleon also said, "The side that stays within it fortifications........is beaten!"

That's something I specifically don't want. That rewards conquest, which is already overpowered. Think about it, the other side is beating you. You have very little chance of winning. Next thing you know, your unhapiness drops so low that you get barbarians popping up who pillage all your tiles. Then you lose production and can't build any more units, so the other side has an even bigger advantage.

I'm saying that you get less war weariness no matter what if you have autocracy or order and you also get less war weariness if you are defending. I realize it doesn't make sense to reward the military policies, but it's a concession to historical flavor.



That's something I specifically don't want. That rewards conquest, which is already overpowered. Think about it, the other side is beating you. You have very little chance of winning. Next thing you know, your unhapiness drops so low that you get barbarians popping up who pillage all your tiles. Then you lose production and can't build any more units, so the other side has an even bigger advantage.

For CiV that does make sense. I have been in a war recently on Emperor, where I was facing Russia and Japan, who invaded attacked my capital at the same time. I defended the best I could but lost it in the end. So the extra burden of added war weariness would have put me at a severe disadvantage. However, the human is much better at defending than the AI. So perhaps at hard levels this could help the AI against the human as levels get more difficult. Instead of giving the AI all of these insane bonuses for everything, maybe by just giving them a bit of an edge militarily would even the odds. Not sure though, it would have to be tested first.

I wanted to say one thing. The side that is losing the war should accumulate more war weariness. For the side that winning it should diminish. People love victories.

If war weariness was simply its namesake I would agree. But like many things in Civ, its several concepts rolled into one.

Its models supply lines mechanics, the increasing difficulty in managing a large conquered empire, military attrition, and actual war weariness.

For CiV that does make sense. I have been in a war recently on Emperor, where I was facing Russia and Japan, who invaded attacked my capital at the same time. I defended the best I could but lost it in the end. So the extra burden of added war weariness would have put me at a severe disadvantage. However, the human is much better at defending than the AI. So perhaps at hard levels this could help the AI against the human as levels get more difficult. Instead of giving the AI all of these insane bonuses for everything, maybe by just giving them a bit of an edge militarily would even the odds. Not sure though, it would have to be tested first.

Wouldn't war weariness apply to the AI as well and hurt them if you're winning, since humans are better at offense?

Wouldn't war weariness apply to the AI as well and hurt them if you're winning, since humans are better at offense?

Yes, humans are always better at offense and have been throughout the Civ series. One has to be cognizant of the fact that negative modifiers always hurt the AI more (unless they start with an artifically high positive level) and to say that the "AI needs to be fixed then" doesn't fully understand the issues involved. You work within that limitation and while certain concepts may sound good on paper, it (altering systems like war weariness) would cause a cascading effect.

Wouldn't war weariness apply to the AI as well and hurt them if you're winning, since humans are better at offense?

Yes, humans are better at defending and offense. Although I have not proved it in my recent game against the AI on emperor. :lol:

Maybe humans should get a higher war weariness than the AI. Because we are better at moving our units for an offensive, so we should get less turns to attack the AI, before our empire goes to hell from unhappiness etc. At higher levels its get tougher and tougher for the human to be at war for extended periods against the AI. Better CiV players, have to think clearly about their objectives before declaring war. So declaring war becomes something you do not take lightly, its a huge decision to undertake.

And this is a seperate issue. My idea of giving the AI bonuses to their military units. I think I like the war weariness idea instead. At harder levels the human simply gets less time to fight wars and conquer.

See, because the way it is now. As a human, I can stay in a declared war with an AI civ even if my happiness has dwindled. I simply have to wait to build a courthouse in a captured city, or build my happiness up from buildings, luxuries, etc. Then I can continue on destroying the AI, until he has one city, or no cities, which is what they change it too. I hate the idea of leaving the AI civ alive. With war weariness this would be difficult. It could take several short sharp wars to accomplish this.

There could be a system put in place where you could declare a short war or a long war. This would have to depend on the production capacity of your empire. I do not know what the thresold should be. Certainly a more industrial productive civ could fight a war longer. These thresold levels needed to either fight a long, or short war, would have to be considered at each era, as production capacity increases over time. So if empire's production is over a certain level in the era your in then you can fight a long war if you choose. You still could opt to fight a shorter war, even if you have production for a long war.

Example...

War turns available by level to a human aggressor by difficulty level, before penalties overburden your empire. Same should go for an AI aggressor. Or perhaps the AI should get more turns?

Long War/Short War turns available.

Prince level 60/40

King level 55/35

Emperor level 50/30

Immortal level 45/25

Diety 40/20

I am not sure about the turn numbers, but what do you guys think?

You work within that limitation and while certain concepts may sound good on paper, it (altering systems like war weariness) would cause a cascading effect.

Any changes would have to be tested of course. At this point I can walk on the AI pretty well on King level. In my recent game in a war with Alex. I took all his cities and left him with one, Knossos, a crappy desert city, a ghost town. And I did not make peace until I had all his other cities, because there was nothing making me do so. Is that really fair for the human to be able to do? I think their should be war weariness consequences. I should be able to take his cities sure, but in so many turns before war weariness occurs. This system certainly would not reward warmongers like myself, but I do stand by it, because it would be more realistic and fair.

Personally, not a fan of war exhaustion. It works well in Europa Universalis, as it tries to be much more realistic than Civilization. Civ is kind of an educational fantasy game, if that makes any sense. As mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd rather there be some kind of international trade, and quite lucrative with nations who are in good relations with you. Will give a benefit for peace and take it away when you are at war with them, and have a reason to fill in the gaps in the map with roads.

Please no war weariness. It was one of the most annoying mechanics in the game.
The last thing I need is some civ declaring on me and getting punished for it.
Or getting punished because I don't feel like having an enemy building up so
he can declare on me for the third time.

The unhappiness is already a weary system. No to war weariness if the unhappiness system is as it is now.

The most annoying thing about the AI waging wars is not about happiness exactly. For example in my last Deity game, the Siamese declared war on turn 24, the war ended on turn 249 when I took their Capital. For all those turns he was bringing units every now and then, I was fending them off until I got to Stealth bombers on turn 192. Only then he considered making peace.

So the real annoyance is that the AI mostly values army strength when it comes to negotiating peace, resulting in such crazy wars.

Also, another thing that needs to be changed (that's more of the diplomacy aspect of CiV) is the fact that if the player declares twice everyone hates him, but we've all seen AI's declaring war like mad without caring about diplomatic hits. Yet, they still have friends around the globe.

So going back to the subject of making constant warring to give penalties to civs, I'd say that: 1) Put a diplomatic hit on breaking a deal, and make it bigger if the deal is bigger. 2) The AI's should get major diplomatic hits if declaring wars more than two times.

The most annoying thing about the AI waging wars is not about happiness exactly. For example in my last Deity game, the Siamese declared war on turn 24, the war ended on turn 249 when I took their Capital. For all those turns he was bringing units every now and then, I was fending them off until I got to Stealth bombers on turn 192. Only then he considered making peace.
I had a similar situation in my last game in which Babylon declared war in the early Renaissance and the war lasted until the end of the game which was won by Space Victory. He was on another continent and never made any move to attack me, but refused to consider peace (unless I would give him all my resources and three of my cities). If a war weariness mechanic had been in the game, it would have destroyed me, and there would have been nothing I could have done about it.

I would rather they fixed the totally broken diplomacy system before they even think about a war weariness feature.

I had a similar situation in my last game in which Babylon declared war in the early Renaissance and the war lasted until the end of the game which was won by Space Victory. He was on another continent and never made any move to attack me (...)

If war weariness was implemented, the unhappiness accumulated should be directly related to unit health lost to prevent this kind of situation from being affected.

Not that I'm saying it should be. A little more mutually beneficial trade would go a long way. And if war weariness were implemented, they should find ways to make it affect the larger civ more, for gameplay balance and probably it would be more realistic too.

I had a similar situation in my last game in which Babylon declared war in the early Renaissance and the war lasted until the end of the game which was won by Space Victory. He was on another continent and never made any move to attack me, but refused to consider peace (unless I would give him all my resources and three of my cities). If a war weariness mechanic had been in the game, it would have destroyed me, and there would have been nothing I could have done about it.

I would rather they fixed the totally broken diplomacy system before they even think about a war weariness feature.

No war weariness for the defender, or at least reduced much more than the attacker. If he declared on you, war weariness would effect his empire not yours, or much moreso than yours, bringing him eventually to the peace table. Unless he is able to defeat you enough or conquer you, in the time he has available while his country has the strength and will to continue fighting. (Both countries at war should be evaluated, and from the outset it should be decided how they stack up against each other.) This way wars cannot go on forever. However they should not be too short either, a well thought out balanced system for war weariness should be thought out. Then it should be tested thoroughly before being implemented.

I do feel the defender should have the advantage from a war weariness standpoint. However, I still feel that the defender has to fight back and win victories to stop the agressor. If the defender wins more battles and kills more units than the aggressor war weariness should accumulate much faster for them. If its the other way around, then the defender begins to feel war weariness more rapidly and the attacker loses it. War weariness should be tied in with the production capacity and the military strength of both empires at war. If you have a large powerful aggressor against a little empire, the little empire should still have a chance to win. The larger empire would have to act fast and defeat the smaller nation before war weariness gets to extreme levels. In the meantime the defender has to fend off those attacks in a big way to make the larger empire build up war weariness faster, causing them to halt their war and talk things over.

The Greco Persian Wars are an example of a smaller collection of Greek city states effectively defeating the vast outrageously more powerful Persian empire.

Another example in favor of the larger empire would be the German invasion of Belgium in 1940. In which the Belgian's were defeated very rapidly and knocked out of the war. Both of these
inevitabilities should be able to occur depending on what happens during a war.

If it were implimented I think the important contributers should be ammount of dammage taken or units lost and distance to capitol.

If you are fighting to recapture your second city you should get less of a penalty than when fighting to defend some far off colony.

If you are fighting a successfull war on the higher difficulty the AI will be loosing alot more units than you anyway.

That being said I do like to fight a German LK war where I sacrifuce alot of them to save my key units, I've taken the Korean capitol defended by Hawatcha this way, that would end up being very expensive.

Lets first review how war weariness worked in civ4 (because a lot of the comments here show complete ignorance on that matter):

In civ4, you would gain wear weariness from participating in combat actions outside you cultural borders.*

+1.5% for losing an offensive battle
+0.5% for winning an offensive battle
+1% for each defensive battle (win or lose)
+3% for capturing a city.
(some stuff related to nuking/being nuked)

So, even in civ4, you would not have a problem with war weariness in a purely defensive war.

*Our more specifically, from combat actions taking place on tiles where you were not the dominant culture. So, this could include some tiles within your borders, if they had belonged to an eliminated civ for a long time.

War weariness + (nearly) permanent war with everyone if you declare more than once = very stupid system, no?
One of the main functions of a war weariness system is to prevent permanent wars. One of the main reasons civ5 has permanent wars, is because there is no penalty for staying at war.

Personally, not a fan of war exhaustion. It works well in Europa Universalis, as it tries to be much more realistic than Civilization. Civ is kind of an educational fantasy game, if that makes any sense. As mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd rather there be some kind of international trade, and quite lucrative with nations who are in good relations with you. Will give a benefit for peace and take it away when you are at war with them, and have a reason to fill in the gaps in the map with roads.
International trade works well to prevent wars and encourage the fostering of friendships. (This is especially true, if the value of trade increases for extended periods of peace.)

It does not work so well, to stimulate the end of wars. The reason for this, is that the penalty for war (no international trade) does not increase as the war lingers on. This is especially tricky for the AI, since once they decide going to war is worth sufferring the penalty, it is hard to get them to reconsider if this penalty stays flat over time. (In general, AI decision making is greatly helped by systems with a more continuous progression. This for example is a reason why the AI in civ5 is not very good in dealing with global happiness system, because the consequences are very discrete.)

Very good points Trias :goodjob:


One of the main functions of a war weariness system is to prevent permanent wars. One of the main reasons civ5 has permanent wars, is because there is no penalty for staying at war.

International trade works well to prevent wars and encourage the fostering of friendships. (This is especially true, if the value of trade increases for extended periods of peace.)

(In general, AI decision making is greatly helped by systems with a more continuous progression. This for example is a reason why the AI in civ5 is not very good in dealing with global happiness system, because the consequences are very discrete.)


I would really like to see return of War Weariness mechanic along with International Trade (and City Heath + Pollution/Smog/Oil Spills in Water tiles = Environmentalism + Random Events). These elements would give CiV a new dimension without making the game too complex (favoring simple gameplay choises/rules when adding these mechanics).

I would really like to see return of War Weariness mechanic along with International Trade (and City Heath + Pollution/Smog/Oil Spills in Water tiles = Environmentalism + Random Events). These elements would give CiV a new dimension without making the game too complex (favoring simple gameplay choises/rules when adding these mechanics).

I should really like to see international trade; that seems to be one of the most lacking things in the game at the moment.

There's very little in the way of indirect interactions between the different civilisations. I'm holding out the faintest of hopes that this has made its way into Gods & Kings and they simply have not got around to telling us yet; we're still lacking a lot of details and so, while it is unlikely, this isn't impossible. Unfortunately it will probably either never come or not until the next expansion.

As far as the war weariness goes, I am a bit more undecided. I don't see it making a great deal of difference to the duration and timing of wars initiated by the AI; at least this isn't likely to be the case unless there is a lot of work on the AI itself. Its judgement is poor and that is what needs the work. In the current state, it is not going to assess the rewards and losses properly, regardless of what they are.

Still, if it was confined largely to the initiating party, rather than the target as some have indicated above, then that should be a good system generally.

I should really like to see international trade; that seems to be one of the most lacking things in the game at the moment.


I completely agree. An international trade system would be very beneficial to the game. I do think that we will probably have to wait for a second expansion though.


As far as the war weariness goes, I am a bit more undecided. I don't see it making a great deal of difference to the duration and timing of wars initiated by the AI; at least this isn't likely to be the case unless there is a lot of work on the AI itself. Its judgement is poor and that is what needs the work. In the current state, it is not going to assess the rewards and losses properly, regardless of what they are.

One of the points I was making before is that a war weariness system may actually be very beneficial for the AI decision making. War weariness acts as an increasing pressure for the AI to get out of a war. Currently, if the AI makes a bad decision to go to war, it is likely to stay in the war (possibly indefinitely) based on the same bad logic. War weariness means that the AI will eventually decide to get out of the war. Bad descision making in this case just means that it gets out of the war a few turns too early or late. (Which should be less disastrous.)

At the very least, it should the AI make more realistic decisions from an immersion perspective when it comes to making peace.


Still, if it was confined largely to the initiating party, rather than the target as some have indicated above, then that should be a good system generally.

I think generally war weariness should largely target the aggressor no matter how started the war. The civ4 rule where only combat actions outside your cultural borders counted towards WW, was a good one I think.

I do agree that extended peace should allow international trade, which would discourage long wars without making them impractical.

There seems to be a strong opinion that additional war-weariness induced happiness penalties would be unpopular. What if war weariness affected some other factor, like growth? Suppose that for every hit point of damage received by one of your units, your civilization produces 0.2 fewer food that turn (spread over all your cities). (This uses the new 100 hp/unit rule).

This way, military expansion comes at the cost of reduced domestic growth. This would parallel rationing during major wars in the early 20th century, and more generally resource reallocation during any historic war.

There are also posts suggesting war weariness should depend upon peace offerings. I don't think this should affect your own people - If you're crushing your hated enemy, and that enemy comes crawling begging for mercy, your people could be perfectly happy to continue eliminating them. It's the international reaction that should encourage acceptance of peace deals. I think that any time a civ rejects a peace offering in their favour, they should receieve an international diplomacy hit. Of course, this would be limited to one hit per turn, to prevent players from crippling AI diplomacy by spamming peace offerings.

Lets first review how war weariness worked in civ4 (because a lot of the comments here show complete ignorance on that matter):

In civ4, you would gain wear weariness from participating in combat actions outside you cultural borders.*

+1.5% for losing an offensive battle
+0.5% for winning an offensive battle
+1% for each defensive battle (win or lose)
+3% for capturing a city.
(some stuff related to nuking/being nuked)

So, even in civ4, you would not have a problem with war weariness in a purely defensive war.

So, in Civ4, you could also declare war and never do anything to fight them without consequence? That seems to be the biggest reason to want War Weariness. Otherwise, we're just talking about some method to limit offensive wars, which there already is (the happiness penalty when you capture cities).

I really think we should have some kind of war weariness, but we need different factors to set the level of weariness.
If you are the defender you shouldn`t be punished too hard for being at war, likewise if you are winning.
Different goverments should also handle war weariness differently. Fascism, Monarhies and Communism should make it easier to be aggressive, while democracies gives you bonuses when being the defender.
Going down the piety tree should reflect religious wars, like increased weariness vs civs of same religion and reduced weariness when fighting civs with another religion.

There`s plenty of potential to make this system well in CiV.

Democracy does not equal peace. The United States, arguably the poster child of democracy expanded greatly through war. Almost everything West of the Louisiana Purchase was annexed through invasion of natives or sending citizens to what was at the time Mexican land and inciting rebellions to join the United States.

The operations in Korea and Vietnam while not technically wars, could still be labeled aggression where the United States for lack of a better term invaded.

I don't believe either communism or democracy are inherently more or less aggressive/defensive than one another.

So, in Civ4, you could also declare war and never do anything to fight them without consequence?

Not entirely. When you are at war, existing WW decays more slowly.


That seems to be the biggest reason to want War Weariness. Otherwise, we're just talking about some method to limit offensive wars, which there already is (the happiness penalty when you capture cities).

The happiness penalty for captured cities only limits conquest, not the duration of war. A WW mechanism, basically forces the aggressor to take a break once in while, giving the defender a window to recover. (Currently, civ5 offers little incentive for a cease fire if you are on the offensive.)

This is especially beneficiary for the AI at higher difficulty settings, because their bonuses mean that they recover faster than the human player.

Lets first review how war weariness worked in civ4 (because a lot of the comments here show complete ignorance on that matter):

In civ4, you would gain wear weariness from participating in combat actions outside you cultural borders.*

+1.5% for losing an offensive battle
+0.5% for winning an offensive battle
+1% for each defensive battle (win or lose)
+3% for capturing a city.
(some stuff related to nuking/being nuked)

So, even in civ4, you would not have a problem with war weariness in a purely defensive war.

We have to stop relying on examples from Civ 4. It is a completely different game. We have to come up with a system that fits with CiV. The same old thing is not going to work here. :)


If it were implimented I think the important contributers should be ammount of dammage taken or units lost and distance to capitol.

If you are fighting to recapture your second city you should get less of a penalty than when fighting to defend some far off colony.

If you are fighting a successfull war on the higher difficulty the AI will be loosing alot more units than you anyway.

That being said I do like to fight a German LK war where I sacrifuce alot of them to save my key units, I've taken the Korean capitol defended by Hawatcha this way, that would end up being very expensive.

I agree importance of key cities has to be a big factor. If you lose your key centers that drive your economy and production. Your ability to fight a war breaks down, when that happens your people become upset. Fear sets in. This is why who is winning and losing the war has to be important. Whether defender or aggressor.

We have to stop relying on examples from Civ 4. It is a completely different game. We have to come up with a system that fits with CiV. The same old thing is not going to work here. :)

There is nothing wrong at looking how things have worked in the past.



I agree importance of key cities has to be a big factor. If you lose your key centers that drive your economy and production. Your ability to fight a war breaks down, when that happens your people become upset. Fear sets in. This is why who is winning and losing the war has to be important. Whether defender or aggressor.

There is no reliable gameplay notion of "importance" of cities in civ5. You seem to be way off track of your intended goal of finding "a system that fits with civ5".

There is nothing wrong at looking how things have worked in the past.




There is no reliable gameplay notion of "importance" of cities in civ5. You seem to be way off track of your intended goal of finding "a system that fits with civ5".

Yes, there is because CiV is not CiIV no matter how you see it. They are by far two different games. What worked usually horribly in CiIV is not going to work in CiV.

And yes a cities importance should play a big factor in a reworked system for war weariness. If you take an important city away from an enemy empire it could lead to dire consequences.

Your right though there is no "importance" to actual cities in the current system. Do you know why? :lol: It has not been invented yet. :lol: These ideas are speculation. Do you understand now? If you do not I do not know how else to lay it out there so you grasp it. Sorry about that! :confused: :D

Some thoughts:

I think that war weariness could be a great component in a future "Trade and Happines" expansion pack. International trade would hinder some senseless wars and war weariness could hinder others. I think that it would be better if happiness would be both global and local, with local unhappiness resulting in revolts. Short sucsessfull wars should actually boost happiness as many politicans who have domestic problems have discovered. The kind of modifiers that civ IV had seems quite good, and I think that it should be a specific negative modefier for every dead soldier on foreign ground. Maybe could defensive wars when they go really bad force you and the computer palyers to accept reasonable peace offers or risk cites revolting. Technology and SP like printing press could even out the diffrence between local and global happiness and buildings like propaganda minestry and warmemorial lessen the war weraness.

International trading, trade agreemnets, income from other persons using your traderoutes, visble trade route at sea that can pirated or attacked with subs.

On other intresting idea for an Happines & Trade expansion would be to have manufuctured luxeries: mosaic, chinaware, religious Icons, textiles, automobiles and electronics that only the first (or the first 2-3 players) that reach a certain tech or age, haves a certain culture level and certain raw materials - much like the wonders is unlocked in the wonder dlc scenario. One manufactured luxury per Age would make the ages a bit more relevant. Togheter with demands like "stop selling textiles to player X, I claim monopoly" could make diplomacy, trade and wars more integrated.

And here would war weariness apply nicly, declare war on a player because of he/she threatens your Monopoly on Chinaware but claim that it is a religius war to avoid a massive negative happiness modifier beacuse of war weariness.

What do you think? Sorry for bad spelling and brainstorming, it is late...

There is nothing wrong at looking how things have worked in the past.

You could argue there was nothing wrong with the way Civ2 had every unit in a stack destroyed when one is destroyed, but you'd have to acknowledge that has no application to Civ5 where there is only one unit and no stack, right?

The point is no one is saying it is flawed for Civ4, but it still needs thought on how to implement in an entirely different game with different features.

You could argue there was nothing wrong with the way Civ2 had every unit in a stack destroyed when one is destroyed, but you'd have to acknowledge that has no application to Civ5 where there is only one unit and no stack, right?

The point is no one is saying it is flawed for Civ4, but it still needs thought on how to implement in an entirely different game with different features.

I believe I was a bit too harsh on him earlier. It just seems to me that they always look to earlier civ versions for excuses. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking, there is nothing wrong with associating thoughts based on the Civ 4 system for war weariness. As long as it is realized CiV is its own entity. We have to come up with a system that fits the premise of that game. However, doing so seems to be rather difficult. I do know one thing, the new system (if there will ever be one?) should not be overly complicated.

So, in Civ4, you could also declare war and never do anything to fight them without consequence? That seems to be the biggest reason to want War Weariness. Otherwise, we're just talking about some method to limit offensive wars, which there already is (the happiness penalty when you capture cities).

Some people also look to war weariness as a way to limit pointless wars. Is the game less enjoyable because Catherine has been at war with you for the last 3000 years, sending the occasional random unit, while completely ignoring all your overtures for peace? Sure, this can be explained as "insurmountable idealogical differences", but arguably these eternal wars should come to an end when they're no longer mutual.

I think that's fine. But the next step is how to implement it both with the Civ5 system and with Civ5's goals. One thing I think is critical is to ensure it limits aggressive expansion. I don't think a stalemate in itself is necessarily bad. I also don't think limited offensive actions are bad. For instance, if the AI declares war on a City-State and you want to protect the CS and do so by attacking them and killing units that would otherwise go to attack the CS, I don't think that should be discouraged.

Your right though there is no "importance" to actual cities in the current system. Do you know why? :lol: It has not been invented yet. :lol: These ideas are speculation. Do you understand now? If you do not I do not know how else to lay it out there so you grasp it. Sorry about that! :confused: :D

Rude much?

Anyway, I don't see any natural way to implement a concept of "importance" to cities which meshes nicely with the existing game concepts.

A much more natural consideration from a game concepts PoV is to just distinguish, own territory, neutral territory, enemy territory.

You could argue there was nothing wrong with the way Civ2 had every unit in a stack destroyed when one is destroyed, but you'd have to acknowledge that has no application to Civ5 where there is only one unit and no stack, right?

The point is no one is saying it is flawed for Civ4, but it still needs thought on how to implement in an entirely different game with different features.

Yes, captain obvious.

Yet there is no reason to completely reinvent the wheel. (Especially, since despite their differences civ4 and civ5 are still fairly similar games.) Some concepts that I think would carry over nicely (both in terms of objectives and existing game concepts):
-WW is based on combat actions
-The location of the combat actions is a factor in how much they contribute to WW.

Some new factors to consider:
-In civ5 not every combat action leads to the death of a unit. These therefore need to be treated separately. I think in general, unit death should have a bigger effect on WW than unit combat.
-What should WW penalize. The most obvious thing is global happiness. This fits best from an immersion point of view. (Deaths on the battle front lead to unrest on the homefront). However, gameplay wise, this may not be the best option. As has been discussed earlier in this thread.

Some thoughts:

I think that war weariness could be a great component in a future "Trade and Happines" expansion pack. International trade would hinder some senseless wars and war weariness could hinder others. I think that it would be better if happiness would be both global and local, with local unhappiness resulting in revolts. Short sucsessfull wars should actually boost happiness as many politicans who have domestic problems have discovered. The kind of modifiers that civ IV had seems quite good, and I think that it should be a specific negative modefier for every dead soldier on foreign ground. Maybe could defensive wars when they go really bad force you and the computer palyers to accept reasonable peace offers or risk cites revolting. Technology and SP like printing press could even out the diffrence between local and global happiness and buildings like propaganda minestry and warmemorial lessen the war weraness.

International trading, trade agreemnets, income from other persons using your traderoutes, visble trade route at sea that can pirated or attacked with subs.

On other intresting idea for an Happines & Trade expansion would be to have manufuctured luxeries: mosaic, chinaware, religious Icons, textiles, automobiles and electronics that only the first (or the first 2-3 players) that reach a certain tech or age, haves a certain culture level and certain raw materials - much like the wonders is unlocked in the wonder dlc scenario. One manufactured luxury per Age would make the ages a bit more relevant. Togheter with demands like "stop selling textiles to player X, I claim monopoly" could make diplomacy, trade and wars more integrated.

And here would war weariness apply nicly, declare war on a player because of he/she threatens your Monopoly on Chinaware but claim that it is a religius war to avoid a massive negative happiness modifier beacuse of war weariness.

What do you think? Sorry for bad spelling and brainstorming, it is late...


A lot of good ideas. Like 'em :)

I think City Health, International Trade (inc. Trading Post fix) and War Weariness / Happiness system upgrade should form the core of 2nd Expansion.

I also like your Manufactured Luxuries idea. Kind of different take on Corporations system in Civ4 (I wasn't very inspired how it worked in the game). Like if you would have access to say, Silk and Dyes (or Fur and Cotton) luxury resources you could make Fine Clothes (a Manufactured Luxury), access to Gems and Gold (or Pearls and Silver) makes possible to build Jeweler building... Yes, I think there might be something to build upon from these ideas to deeper the Trade/Happiness dimension of CiV. :)

In Europa universalis 1 (or 2, i don't remember) years of war without fighting bring an immediate peace event.
I think we need this something like this for avoid infinite wars :)

Rude much?

Anyway, I don't see any natural way to implement a concept of "importance" to cities which meshes nicely with the existing game concepts.

A much more natural consideration from a game concepts PoV is to just distinguish, own territory, neutral territory, enemy territory.

Yes sorry for being sarcastic. I was thinking the 'importance' could be based on the prescence of strategic, and luxury resources inside cities. Cities lost that have iron and horses could cause problems for an empire trying to fight a war. Also, cities captured, that lose valuable luxuries reduce the economic strength of the enemy empire.

Three tiers of cities rated 1-4 by importance.

1.)The Capital is obviously the most important city

2.) Cities with strategic resources.

3.) Cities with luxury resources.

4.) Cities without resources. Some of these may be important for food, gold, production, science etc. Generally though the importance should be based more on resources. Resources drive the game.

The AI could be made to understand to invade cities with strategic and luxury resources easy enough. It already comes for the capital. This would just give it a few more objectives to consider in a war.

Besides it already knows the difference between friendly, enemy, and neutral territory for the most part. Although it could use a rework in its understanding of enemy territory, because the AI loves to try to move an army across one enemy civ's land, to get to another. The AI does not understand that by passing through it's units are at severe risk of attack. :)

Another way could be to rate cities by the amount of science, gold, production, culture, and the amount of happiness they produce. 1. Capital 2. Production 3. Gold. 4. Happiness 5. Science 6. Culture, or swap the last two?

Limiting war? Surem but not through war weariness.

The hapiness hit you take is already a way endless conquest is limited. The warfare in GK will most likely take this further through longer battles and more defensive units. Then there also will be the diplomatic part.

A suggestion made before somewhere is those of rebels spawning near cities in anarchy. This will mean you need to devote a part of your army to guarding newly conquered cities.

So it seems conquest will be slowed down, instead of penalized. That's a good thing imo.

Yes sorry for being sarcastic. I was thinking the 'importance' could be based on the prescence of strategic, and luxury resources inside cities. Cities lost that have iron and horses could cause problems for an empire trying to fight a war. Also, cities captured, that lose valuable luxuries reduce the economic strength of the enemy empire.

Three tiers of cities rated 1-4 by importance.
[...]


The problems I see with any such evalution of importance for determining WW are:
* It is bound the be rather intransparent for the player.
* (Related) although it may generally coincide with which cities a player considers important, but situations will arise where this is not the case, which will lead to incomprehension and frustration with the human player.
* This is exacerbated by the fact that there is no transparent way if linking specific battles to a specific city.

A rather more transparent mechanic that at least partially would reach the same goal is linking WW simply to capitol distance (i.e. the further away from your capitol the more combat activity contributes to WW). Your most important cities tend to be close to your capitol (alhtough not always). Something to keep in mind would be that the weighting needs to taper off as the game progresses (making distant wars more feasible in the end game).

A rather more transparent mechanic that at least partially would reach the same goal is linking WW simply to capitol distance (i.e. the further away from your capitol the more combat activity contributes to WW). Your most important cities tend to be close to your capitol (alhtough not always). Something to keep in mind would be that the weighting needs to taper off as the game progresses (making distant wars more feasible in the end game).

I think your idea here could be a step in the right direction. We could also make it that if you control more than one capital, those are areas around capitals would be deemed more important. (Although secondary to an enemy civs main capital, and surrounding cities.) There could be some secondary variable that can be applied to determining the importance of cities, so cities not near capitals, who may be important for some reason, become viable targets.

The human can already determine what enemy city is important. Usually we are blinded by a fog of war anyway, so a lot of our earlier campaigns occur by chance. The main thing is to help the AI, a system like this could potentially help the AI strategize a great deal better. Perhaps it will not be as confused on which target to attack. And it hopefully won't pick a target to attack in a far away enemy territory, while have to move its army through another enemy civs territory to get across to that target. The AI will say like Charles Bronson, "Hey! Wait a minute! Those guys are closer let's attack them first!"

A rather more transparent mechanic that at least partially would reach the same goal is linking WW simply to capitol distance (i.e. the further away from your capitol the more combat activity contributes to WW). Your most important cities tend to be close to your capitol (alhtough not always). Something to keep in mind would be that the weighting needs to taper off as the game progresses (making distant wars more feasible in the end game).

And making the forbidden palace help with the consequences? Maybe. I personally think that WW would be too much. Current system at least on bigger maps already forces you to eventually just aim for the capitals (if you're going for militarish victory). Considering a map with many continents that distance system would really suck : ). Maybe if the victory conditions changes from capital capture to capital or % of map control victory then it might have some value..

But currently. Let's say if you're happiness is in pretty good shape or excellent shape you are maybe able to conquer max 4-5 cities and then having serious problems with happiness. I think that limits a LOT already, considering a bigger map with civs having 10-15+ cities. It at least slows u down until u get courthouses.. In smaller maps and less civs its true that it isnt enough. And there's already barbarians appearing in your civ if you have a lot of unhappiness. Has happened to me.

But as some have said before. AI's don't have the happiness problem ever, so WW would make the players' game even more annoying. And if WW increases even the slightest by player doing almost nothing it just hurts the player... not AI. Making the game more annoying than fun or challenging.

So I don't know. With the current AI happiness I don't think any WW or WW related would fix anything because it wouldn't hurt the AI ever and the player it would at some point. Peace loving and warmongering people, both would lose in such case.

I don't know. Maybe WW would work if it makes your people happier in successful war or neglate the negative happiness of WW. Something like related to % of army lost. Let's say if you're able to lose less percent of your army compared to your opponent then you wouldnt suffer from WW but the opponent would. Losing even more would make it worse or something. But then again it might slightly favour the superior army so I don't know. Hard to say in this current system if anything makes it better.

After finishing a few games, war weariness is a natural occurrence in the game. I got so sick of fighting that I just wanted to sue for peace because I didn't want to be at war anymore. I just wanted to get rid of some of my troops and stop moving them every turn. Meh.

The human can already determine what enemy city is important. Usually we are blinded by a fog of war anyway, so a lot of our earlier campaigns occur by chance. The main thing is to help the AI, a system like this could potentially help the AI strategize a great deal better. Perhaps it will not be as confused on which target to attack. And it hopefully won't pick a target to attack in a far away enemy territory, while have to move its army through another enemy civs territory to get across to that target. The AI will say like Charles Bronson, "Hey! Wait a minute! Those guys are closer let's attack them first!"

I dont understand why you would want to do this through a game mechanic rather than just implementing it directly into the AI logic, where this type of prioritizing belongs.

(new) Game mechanics can help the AI the 2 main ways:
1) Making the choices the AI already makes more optimal.
2) Resolve situations where the optimal choice is unclear or determined by rather abstract factors which are hard for the AI to assess.

The way I see WW helping the AI is the second category. Currently, there is no clear optimal moment for ending war. Determining when to take a breather (which is mostly beneficial for the AI only due to its production bonuses) is rather hard. A WW mechanism creates a clearer optimum for when to end a war, thereby encourage behaviour that was already a good idea for the AI.

(It goes even further than that because it also encourages the human player to take breathers in wars, something that generally is more beneficial for the AI than the human, and thus helping the AI.)

After finishing a few games, war weariness is a natural occurrence in the game. I got so sick of fighting that I just wanted to sue for peace because I didn't want to be at war anymore. I just wanted to get rid of some of my troops and stop moving them every turn. Meh.

Off topic: Do people actually do this at peace time? I see the AI constantly shifting it's military units around all over the place. But I usually have my military units either in my cities or stationed (fortified) on rough terrain around my borders. I only move them to take out a barb camp or the mobilize for war.

EDIT: On pangeas, I'll also send them out to help my scout(s) explore, but I never just continually move them around my territory.

If I'm the game developer, I have to ask, "How far out of my way am I willing to go to discourage war?" If some players like going to war, then why not let them go to war? It needs to be about making peace more fun--not making war less fun.

If I'm the game developer, I have to ask, "How far out of my way am I willing to go to discourage war?" If some players like going to war, then why not let them go to war? It needs to be about making peace more fun--not making war less fun.

I like going to war. They all get mad at me for wanting to do so on here. :lol: Pretty much, because I like wars they say I deserve what I get when the AI gives me a warmonger penalty. The reality about CiV is that the AI loves to go to war, it loves to attack city states. (Although 3 times out of 5, it is too stupid to actually take the place. Though, lately, for some odd reason the AI has played much better for some reason, when fighting.) A lot of people on here talk about how the warmongering AI gets all the same penalties as a human. That may be, but it does not seem to hinder it from being aggressive in the least. The fact is that it keeps right on declaring war, and keeps right on being aggressive until the end of the game. And, if thats the case the human should be unhindered as well. Why tie the humans hands? Its time to conquer. :)

I dont understand why you would want to do this through a game mechanic rather than just implementing it directly into the AI logic, where this type of prioritizing belongs.

Why not add it to the AI logic that's fine by me. Many people say that programming the AI to prioritize is difficult though. As I am not a programmer i am not sure or not if thats the case. However, if it is feasible to program the AI to think better, then I am all for it. I do have an open mind about this.

As far as war weariness goes, I am not sure how much we really need. In my current game, I have had to make choices to keep my happiness up. Japan declared war on me in my current game. When I took his first city I had 4 happiness. After capturing it my happiness jumped to 12, due to two luxury resources I did not have. After annexing the city my happiness is now at 3 happiness. Now I realize that this will improve as time goes on and I build a courthouse there. In the meantime however, I am trying to settle a city to the north next to a 6 iron tile. That 3 happiness is needed for that purpose, which will likely put me into negative happiness anyway. So taking the Japanese capital is probably not in my best interest right now, because it would severely hamper my happiness.

Now the other problem going on is that Rome my neighbor on the other side has just denounced me. He has coveted my lands from the get go. If he declares war on me, there is a city of his I want to raze. Then I want settle a new city to the south of that one. This way I have an extra port, access to more horses, and when the city grows, access to three more luxuries I do not currently have. So I will need happiness for that as well. With the current system there is only so much happiness to go around anyway. I am not sure adding more war weariness to the game is the right choice anymore. I think the game has the right balance right now as far as that goes.

That game is also my first real game on Emperor, so far I am hanging tough. Its been a lot of fun.

Off topic: Do people actually do this at peace time? I see the AI constantly shifting it's military units around all over the place. But I usually have my military units either in my cities or stationed (fortified) on rough terrain around my borders. I only move them to take out a barb camp or the mobilize for war.

EDIT: On pangeas, I'll also send them out to help my scout(s) explore, but I never just continually move them around my territory.

That's why I want peace so I can stop moving them. When I am at peace, I don't have to move them every turn.

Does that make sense?

There should be a warmongering scenario... I suppose you could play always war with no other way to win, right?

Yes, but that does not change the orginal point. It just means you would need to make changes to the diplomatic system as well to prevent that permanent war from being unavoidable (I believe some changes were coming up?).

I read that as a reference to Civ IV, honestly. You gained no extra war weariness from being at war with 8 civs than you did being at war with one, war weariness didn't increase that much over time so while you got a hit once you first started feeling the effects of war weariness, you could be at war pretty much permanently from then on. And war = lots of units = no happiness penalty with Hereditary Rule. Civ V doesn't fix this, but getting rid of war weariness at least makes more intuitive sense if you *are* going to be at war permanently.

Having said that I think there should be some war weariness mechanism as long as the AI's peace conditions are revamped so that they stop making stupid demands like everything of mine when I'm winning.

I wanted to say one thing. The side that is losing the war should accumulate more war weariness. For the side thats winning it should diminish. People love victories. That's why Napoleon said, "France will follow me to the stars if I give her another victory!" That also means the AI needs to be more aggressive and be able to capture cities, and not be on the defensive so much. Because Napoleon also said, "The side that stays within it fortifications........is beaten!"

Agreed that that makes sense, but would you trust Civ V AI to know who's winning at any given time? Bear in mind the military advisor's usual 'advice', the bizarre peace deals offered when you're winning, and the AI's inability to factor in the importance of any city that isn't the capital (as far as it's concerned, if I destroy four Babylonian cities and haven't entered the borders of Babylon itself, as long as Nebuchadnezzar still has a higher ranking in the pointy sticks list, he's winning the war as firmly as if he's attacking my final city).

Agreed that that makes sense, but would you trust Civ V AI to know who's winning at any given time? Bear in mind the military advisor's usual 'advice', the bizarre peace deals offered when you're winning, and the AI's inability to factor in the importance of any city that isn't the capital (as far as it's concerned, if I destroy four Babylonian cities and haven't entered the borders of Babylon itself, as long as Nebuchadnezzar still has a higher ranking in the pointy sticks list, he's winning the war as firmly as if he's attacking my final city).

Exactly why I am interested in what changes are made in Gods and Kings.

Lately, I was thinking that war weariness may not be needed. However, the AI does need a system put in place where it can prioritize the importance of enemy cities, to help it conduct war in a more beneficial way, as well as a more strategic way. The idea has come across that this should be integrated into AI logic. If that is possible, I am all for it.