Initiating War

[Craterus22]

I have been playing some mods recently and one recurring issue bothers me (and I am sure some of you). Wars started by the AI that have no possibility of resolution due to the distance between the two civs.

This rule should be applied EVEN if the firaxians can figure out how to have the AI conduct longdistance war.

There should be a rule about initiating war (AT LEAST in the first two eras (or early part of the game if no eras):

In order to START a war your borders MUST touch your enemies borders!

Everything else the same - your allies can still help you conduct a war (you are thier proxie for touching the borders). Mutual protection will also still work since your allies enemy would be touching his borders.

What do you guys think?

edit----
I have voted Yes - with modification. Meaning - i would like to see something like this - borders touching or border nearness or wonders that allow distant war in the early ages or some kind of special declare war flag unit (which would be used up when declaring a distant war - perhaps the flag unit would have to be accompanied by an invasion level force).

 

[sealman]

I voted yes because that annoys me to all ends and has lead to my mortal hatred of the Babylonians.

I would say that there should be some set distance between your cultural boarders and theirs, not actually touching since it is rare for this to occur in early stages of the game.

The only problem I see is that it could cause people to ignore those civs that are not an immediate concern.

 

[Jon Shafer]

What happens if there are only two civs left on seperate landmasses too far away to attack each other?

 

[Theoden]

I would rather like the rule to be: you have to be able to see one of their units or cities with at least one of your combat units.

That way, serious long distance wars will not be prevented.

 

[sealman]

What happens if there are only two civs left on seperate landmasses too far away to attack each other?

That is where the phrase "with modifications" comes into play.

To be totally honest, once I think this whole thing through, I will probably agree with Trip. It is just the thought of no more pointless wars with Babylonians is jumping to the forefront of my thinking.

 

[North King]

No! This is completely unhistorical and rather disrupting of proper gameplay.

 

[sealman]

No! This is completely unhistorical and rather disrupting of proper gameplay.

How is it unhistorical?? I can not recall one historical instance where one group of people declared war on another group of people when they were not relatively close to each other.

And don't pull out recent examples like the US and Iraq because 1) the US has not actually declared war on Iraq (which need not be discussed here) and 2) Carterus says "at least in the first 2 eras or early part of the game"

I agree that in the Modern Era this should be around but why not in the Ancient Era.

 

[Dida]

You cannot? Okay, let me give you an example.

The Han dynasty of China seeked to strike at the Huns. Emissaries were sent to persuate the countries in between Huns and the Chinese to join force under the Chinese flag against the Huns. When these countries refused, the Chinese sent armies across their lands, without regard to their terroristrial right, and dealt a critical blow to the Huns.

The Chinese and Huns were separated by deserts and dozens of small countries, and yet the Chinese destroyed the Huns. Craterus22's idea would place an un-needed restriction on gameplay, which is both no fun, and a gross violation of historical accuracy.

 

[sealman]

Dida:

Thanks for the little history lesson. Do you roughly know the distance between the two empires at the time that the Han armies had to cross? (edit: re-reading this, it sounds a bit sarcastic. It is not meant to be.)

"idea would place an un-needed restriction on gameplay." Restriction, yes. Un-needed - all depends on your point of view.

"no fun" again depends on your point of view. However, in contrast, it is no fun when a civ on the other side of the world declares war when there is no chance that any military conflict would result. Again, that is why the "with modification" phrase in the poll comes into play. Hopefully, this whole aspect of the game, which is a major problem in my opinion, is correct in one way or another. Either with something along the lines of Craterus' idea or an AI that follow up thier declarations with actual military might.

"gross violation of historical accuracy". The whole game is a gross violation of historical accuracy so this argument should not be used either in favor or against this idea.

And, as I said in an earlier post

To be totally honest, once I think this whole thing through, I will probably agree with Trip. It is just the thought of no more pointless wars with Babylonians is jumping to the forefront of my thinking.

 

[dathon78]

It is just the thought of no more pointless wars with Babylonians is jumping to the forefront of my thinking.

I'm curious; if it is a pointless war where you cannot be hurt, then what harm can come of it? True, war affects your standing with the race, but if you are talking Hamurabbi or Shaka, their disposition is rarely good with the player civ anyway, and doesn't ever seem to stop them from attacking. My $0.02 is to just let them stomp their feet and act like toddlers; all too often they bite off more than they can chew and get eliminated (or at least severely neutered) anyway. Besides, if it is a matter of certain races annoying you so much, you can always opt to disclude them from your games, or alter their personalities.

-dathon

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I voted yes because that annoys me to all ends and has lead to my mortal hatred of the Babylonians.

How did that happen? Do you always play a Mideastern civ or something?

 

[Dida]

Well, if another distant civ wants to declare war on you, then it is their liberty to do so. You have no right to go meddling in their internal business. Doesn't matter how far they are away from you, as long as they want to declare war they have the right to do so, whether they have the capability to carry it out is another question.
Designing the game to disallow this would be needless. But then again, it doesn't change the gameplay that much, to me this is minor.

 

[Corvex]

The crusades come to mind.

 

[thescaryworker]

There shouldn't be some factor in AI programming where EVERY TIME you didn't accept their tribute, no matter how weak they were, they still declared war on you.

 

[sealman]

I'm curious; if it is a pointless war where you cannot be hurt, then what harm can come of it? True, war affects your standing with the race, but if you are talking Hamurabbi or Shaka, their disposition is rarely good with the player civ anyway, and doesn't ever seem to stop them from attacking. My $0.02 is to just let them stomp their feet and act like toddlers; all too often they bite off more than they can chew and get eliminated (or at least severely neutered) anyway. Besides, if it is a matter of certain races annoying you so much, you can always opt to disclude them from your games, or alter their personalities.

-dathon

It's just an annoyance factor. The harm comes from it in that if the civs are always decalring war on someone where they can not effectively fight a war, then they are unable to advance in step with other civs and evetually fall behind. There are good points and bad to this but if it becomes a perpetual problem, then it becomes an issue that needs to be addressed because gameplay does eventually suffer.

Personaly, I will not alter the personalities of the civs since I really do not see that as the underlying problem. India has done the same thing in some of my games is it is not only the aggessiveness. I chose my opponents by random selection so if my hated Babylonians are there, I already know how certain apsects of my game will play out.

How did that happen? Do you always play a Mideastern civ or something?

I play everything random with cultural link starting positions turned off.

The crusades come to mind.

The crusades should be viewed a little differently since it was not one civ (or nation) waging the crusade, it was a religious way to "free" the holy land. But your point is well taken.

Well, if another distant civ wants to declare war on you, then it is their liberty to do so. You have no right to go meddling in their internal business. Doesn't matter how far they are away from you, as long as they want to declare war they have the right to do so, whether they have the capability to carry it out is another question.

Designing the game to disallow this would be needless. But then again, it doesn't change the gameplay that much, to me this is minor.

Your right. It is there right to declare war if they so desire and it is a minor issue. Can I live with something like this being implemented? Yes. I can live with the annoyance this causes me? Yes.

I guess an underlying issue is this. When the AI declares war on a civ and does not have the ability to carry it out effectively, does this have any impact on the game? And if so, should it be altered?

I would answer yes to both questions. I think that the game would be more enjoyable if the AI could effectively manage any sort of war.

 

[Hyronymus]

No! This is completely unhistorical and rather disrupting of proper gameplay.

The Spanish declared and occupied The Netherlands in the 16th/17th century. There are Belgium and France in between Spain and The Netherlands, I estimate some 2000km. And didn't the Japanese declare war to America in WW2, not exactly the nearest nation!

 

[sealman]

The Spanish declared and occupied The Netherlands in the 16th/17th century. There are Belgium and France in between Spain and The Netherlands, I estimate some 2000km. And didn't the Japanese declare war to America in WW2, not exactly the nearest nation!

Good point (Spain/Netherlands). WW2, however, is more modern times which, this provision would not longer apply.

Craterus - where are you? Come defend your idea... My support for this, which was baised on a rash hope of getting rid of my annoyance wars with Babylon, is being eroded away as I start to actually think about it.

 

[Heat Miser]

I'm curious; if it is a pointless war where you cannot be hurt, then what harm can come of it? True, war affects your standing with the race, but if you are talking Hamurabbi or Shaka, their disposition is rarely good with the player civ anyway, and doesn't ever seem to stop them from attacking. My $0.02 is to just let them stomp their feet and act like toddlers; all too often they bite off more than they can chew and get eliminated (or at least severely neutered) anyway. Besides, if it is a matter of certain races annoying you so much, you can always opt to disclude them from your games, or alter their personalities.

-dathon

The greatest harm is war weariness in your civ.

 

[GeneralZed]

I voted no, because in RL there was war between countries which werent neighboors at all. I dont see the point of setting a rule if you want to do some war or not. When I see a civilization, which is growing to much, I try to stop them.
In the ancient ages the civilizations didnt fight other because they simply didnt know them or had simply peace with them. Europe didnt fight against china because they were only traders. But, as we all know, jerusalem isnt near to any European country at all, but they still fought the muslims in the crusades.

Maybe Firaxis could limit the amount of civilizations to fight at once or something like that.

 

[Heat Miser]

@ GeneralZed:

What about global conflagrations like WWI and WWII?