War weariness

[beest]

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.

 

[Draskar]

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).

 

[MaximusK]

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.

 

[FeiLing]

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

 

[Louis XXIV]

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.

 

[Babri]

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

 

[Louis XXIV]

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

 

[beest]

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?).

 

[dexters]

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.

 

[Tantor]

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.

 

[beest]

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

I couldn't agree more

 

[Louis XXIV]

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.

 

[GRM7584]

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?

 

[Louis XXIV]

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.

 

[Montov]

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.

 

[beest]

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.

 

[Louis XXIV]

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.

 

[AriochIV]

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.

 

[kwikill]

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

 

[beest]

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