Will Civ still be predominantly a war game with G&K?

If there was a way to hamper or punish warmongering, Civ5 wouldn't be considered a war game. I suggest in G&K they bring war weariness back. It is impossible to play a completely peaceful game. In fact, it was going to war that made me give up the last game. It just wore me out. I say if you want to go to war, you must have some punishable consequence that goes along with it.

PreLynMax said:

... I say if you want to go to war, you must have some punishable consequence that goes along with it.

Click to expand...

The "punishable consequences" are the happiness problem you get, when conquering too many cities (early game) *and* the diplomatic warmonger penalty which reduces your trading partners and finally causes mass-DOW (middle and late game).

I know that everybody has his own aspects, he loves about Civ. Mine (and many other players, I guess) favourite aspect *is* war.
Not, because it leads to an easier victory (I don't deny this), but because it is fun !

So, I don't think there should be more mechanism to penalize a war-heavy game, as this would probably drain fun out of the game (for "us").
What is needed, are new mechanism that bring *additional* fun (and not war related) aspects into the game. I would like to see this, too, as even for me, war is not the *only* aspect I enjoy with CiV.

Fortunately, this is exacly what seems to happen, with G&K: Religion, espionage, new CS-diplomaty - all new and promising non-war-features!

Deggial said:

So, I don't think there should be more mechanism to penalize a war-heavy game, as this would probably drain fun out of the game (for "us").
What is needed, are new mechanism that bring *additional* fun (and not war related) aspects into the game. I would like to see this, too, as even for me, war is not the *only* aspect I enjoy with CiV.

Fortunately, this is exacly what seems to happen, with G&K: Religion, espionage, new CS-diplomaty - all new and promising non-war-features!

Click to expand...

I second this opinion. However, the other big problem is how weak the AI is at warfare at the moment, which has also been stated before in this thread. I hope the planned changes to the combat system will change that a bit. Otherwise warmongering will remain the "go-to remedy" for most situations.

The current happiness penalty, if properly balanced, is actually more effective because it punishes conquest, not just being at war. A stalemate, while realistically producing unhappiness, punishes failure to succeed. Limiting conquest slows war down.

War weariness, health, and corporatins should make a return someday.

But better than War Weariness I think Civ should look long and hard at Causus Belli systems like EU3 and CKII. Tie it to war weariness.

seasnake said:

War weariness, health

Click to expand...

Incentives at not going at war are not high enough. The AI is pretty poor at combat like other said. I hope they will not cripple the war machine too much.

Wars have always been the best way to gain advantage of the game from all iterations. It must always be like this too.

The war weariness is a big problem for civ4 mp games. Humans are not stupid...they let the other player die(those who declare wars) while their cities are more and more unhappy. War weariness is a system for singleplayer only. If they add it, i hope we can put them as an option for mp games. Maybe add some maintenance for number of cities but that's all. Prsonnally i prefer no war weariness. It's better like this. Health barrier is ok like it is right now.

A better AI is the overall best solution.

Despite what my sig says, Civ does loosely represent reality, and in reality, empires may involve diplo, may involve espionage, might dominate culturally, or whatever, but it's either very rare to never that any empire has ever existed without waging a little war, and usually it's actually accomplished by waging a lot of war.

The goal of the game is still to win, ie, to dominate all other civs, and the whole idea of dominating via peaceful means sort of contradicts the whole idea of dominating.

So as much as I like the fact that you can win the game in ways other than completely slaughtering your opponents, there is almost surely going to be some warring in any kind of empire building game, since warring is a key and core concept of empire building.

Sure you can win the game of Civ via nonviolent/peaceful means, but it's kind of screwy to think the game should cater excessively to that unnatural and unlikely sort of empire building.

I'm a builder, btw, warmongering isn't really my style although I enjoy it a lot more in Civ5 than in previous Civs because I'm a big fan of hex and 1UPT - I just wish the AI was better, and coming from someone as tactically feeble as myself, that's saying something.