Denouncing and DOW

sherbz · Aug 17, 2012

I think this is something that ought to be made a standard game feature. I like the way that you now have to make a dec of friendship with another civ before you can get a research agreement. It makes good diplomacy pay, even if diplomacy is still kind of rubbish.

I think they ought to change the denouncing system, though, so that you have to denounce someone which gives you a window of X turns to declare war. Otherwise you cant DOW. You could thread in a number of other elements to this feature. Ones I would consider are:

A wonder that allows you to DOW without denouncing

A spy mission which frames your opponent as the aggressor (so that you can DOW, perhaps even without incurring a penalty).

As an aside, it would give the player a cast iron threat that an AI can declare on them and stupid declarations of war will become a thing of the past. This might make the game easier, but i think from a playing point of view it would be quite good.

Thoughts?

qemist · Aug 17, 2012

sherbz said:
I think this is something that ought to be made a standard game feature. I like the way that you now have to make a dec of friendship with another civ before you can get a research agreement. It makes good diplomacy pay, even if diplomacy is still kind of rubbish.

I think they ought to change the denouncing system, though, so that you have to denounce someone which gives you a window of X turns to declare war. Otherwise you cant DOW. You could thread in a number of other elements to this feature. Ones I would consider are:

A wonder that allows you to DOW without denouncing

A spy mission which frames your opponent as the aggressor (so that you can DOW, perhaps even without incurring a penalty).

As an aside, it would give the player a cast iron threat that an AI can declare on them and stupid declarations of war will become a thing of the past. This might make the game easier, but i think from a playing point of view it would be quite good.

Thoughts?

Yes. Your idea is terrible: unrealistic and poor game play.

Mesix · Aug 17, 2012

I don't like how the computer seems to go from a declaration of friendship to denouncing without much reason. I think that long term declared friendships should be lasting unless the player does something to upset the friendship. I find it very annoying that (especially at higher levels) the game often ends with the entire world dogpiling in denouncing me on the same turn. Even AI players who have denounced each other and have been at war for most of the game are all of the sudden denouncing buddies when it comes time to dogpile the human player.

Declaring war is okay without notice. The element of surprise is a key advantage in wars.

Tachii · Aug 17, 2012

^ It's called backstabbing when they denounce in the DoF. And they rarely do it in my game unless I settle close to them or wage war too often. Or, the guy is a warmonger, chose autocracy while I chose freedom, and my military is nothing compared to his.

sherbz · Aug 17, 2012

qemist said:
Yes. Your idea is terrible: unrealistic and poor game play.

I dont see how its unrealistic. Conflicts almost always follow on from a denunciation of some sort, or an ultimatum. I can think of very few examples where some sort of demand or denunciation was not issued before a DOW. Pearl harbour being one notable example. You could incorporate both into gameplay.

In civ 4 you were notified of a general buid up when an AI was gearing for war. I guess the denunciation is specific, which is why i say, throw in a few modifiers like wonders and spies to make it more unpredictable.

qemist · Aug 17, 2012

sherbz said:
I dont see how its unrealistic. Conflicts almost always follow on from a denunciation of some sort, or an ultimatum. I can think of very few examples where some sort of demand or denunciation was not issued before a DOW. Pearl harbour being one notable example.

Barbarossa being another. And the Soviet attack on Japan in WW2. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of surprise attacks in history. Your idea seems basically to force the AI to give you notice before a DoW. I don't think that's necessary.

kamikazees · Aug 17, 2012

the problem I see is that this idea what totally prevent backstabs. what would life be like if we could not lie, cheat and steal?

hobbsyoyo · Aug 17, 2012

sherbz said:
I dont see how its unrealistic. Conflicts almost always follow on from a denunciation of some sort, or an ultimatum. I can think of very few examples where some sort of demand or denunciation was not issued before a DOW. Pearl harbour being one notable example. You could incorporate both into gameplay.

In civ 4 you were notified of a general buid up when an AI was gearing for war. I guess the denunciation is specific, which is why i say, throw in a few modifiers like wonders and spies to make it more unpredictable.

The Japanese had been asking/warning the US to lift the oil embargo for quite a while before Pearl. There was also a formal DoW that the Japanese ambassador was supposed to deliver to the President before the attack began but was crucially delayed by a few hours so it came after the attack.

A lot of the pilots and even Admiral Yamamoto felt personal shame about this when they found out because it is decidedly un-Samarai to sneak-attack.

But I do feel that there should still be sneak attacks and backstabbing in the game.

kamikazees said:
the problem I see is that this idea what totally prevent backstabs. what would life be like if we could not lie, cheat and steal?

Heavenly?

OmniPotent42 · Aug 17, 2012

What's wrong with sneak-attacks? Did the AI capture a city or two from you by declaring war? Or did he lose all of his units? It's his gain or loss, so just be willing to accept the outcome. If you didn't think he was a threat at all when you were in a DoF, then I don't think it's the AI that needs to change.

Denouncing and DOW

sherbz

Deity

qemist

Prince

Mesix

The Allfather

Tachii

Procrastinator

sherbz

Deity

qemist

Prince

kamikazees

Warlord

hobbsyoyo

Deity

OmniPotent42

King

Similar threads