Regardless of who's right and who's wrong in the heated debate about AI aggression in BNW, I believe it would create and interesting game dynamic if warfare became more lucrative.
In the absence of a credible deterrent, possible repercussions, and legal/economic sanctions imposed by other alliances/the international community, it is my opinion that the potential gains of war/conquest - and especially in pre-modern times - should be far greater than the potential gains of trade.
For instance, I think potential gains from war should/could include:
Plundering
When a city is taken, and option to plunder the city should be made available. Plundering will cause city to decrease in population, while resulting in the destruction of buildings, wonders, and works of art.
Gold: Size of loot should depend on size of city, city's gold production, and the total gold, as well as total gold of civ. Total size of loot may be larger than the amount of gold stolen directly from the other civ's treasury. It would simply not be realistic if all the gold available to a civ equals all the gold that exists throughout the empire.
Works of art: If not destroyed during the raid, there should be a small chance that "plundering" also results in captured works of art. This obviously depends on whether the plundering civ has any empty slots, and whether the city being plundered contains any works of art.
Enslavement
When a city is taken from another civ, there should be an option to enslave parts of the city's population. Choosing "enslavement" will increase the production of targeted cities that belong to the conquering civ, either in terms of a larger sum of hammers (similar to what happens when forest tiles are chopped down), or in terms of increased production per turn for a finite number of turns. Number of citizens possible to enslave will depend on size of city. Let's say you can enslave half the population, bringing a city of six down to three.
Other suggestions include more elaborate peace settlements, tech theft, and forcing civs to pay tribute. If they are willing to risk war, tributary civs should be given the opportunity to break free from their obligations whenever they so desire. Tributary relations can be renegotiated, and last until they are broken by either party.
Please consider, these are only initial thoughts. Many details remain. But I do think we ought to remember that warfare used to be a highly profitable business exactly because kings/emperors/generals afforded conquered armies and their peoples very limited empathy. Triumph in battle meant the gods had been good.
To the victor belong the spoils.
In the absence of a credible deterrent, possible repercussions, and legal/economic sanctions imposed by other alliances/the international community, it is my opinion that the potential gains of war/conquest - and especially in pre-modern times - should be far greater than the potential gains of trade.
For instance, I think potential gains from war should/could include:
Plundering
When a city is taken, and option to plunder the city should be made available. Plundering will cause city to decrease in population, while resulting in the destruction of buildings, wonders, and works of art.
Gold: Size of loot should depend on size of city, city's gold production, and the total gold, as well as total gold of civ. Total size of loot may be larger than the amount of gold stolen directly from the other civ's treasury. It would simply not be realistic if all the gold available to a civ equals all the gold that exists throughout the empire.
Works of art: If not destroyed during the raid, there should be a small chance that "plundering" also results in captured works of art. This obviously depends on whether the plundering civ has any empty slots, and whether the city being plundered contains any works of art.
Enslavement
When a city is taken from another civ, there should be an option to enslave parts of the city's population. Choosing "enslavement" will increase the production of targeted cities that belong to the conquering civ, either in terms of a larger sum of hammers (similar to what happens when forest tiles are chopped down), or in terms of increased production per turn for a finite number of turns. Number of citizens possible to enslave will depend on size of city. Let's say you can enslave half the population, bringing a city of six down to three.
Other suggestions include more elaborate peace settlements, tech theft, and forcing civs to pay tribute. If they are willing to risk war, tributary civs should be given the opportunity to break free from their obligations whenever they so desire. Tributary relations can be renegotiated, and last until they are broken by either party.
Please consider, these are only initial thoughts. Many details remain. But I do think we ought to remember that warfare used to be a highly profitable business exactly because kings/emperors/generals afforded conquered armies and their peoples very limited empathy. Triumph in battle meant the gods had been good.
To the victor belong the spoils.
