Limitation war

[BuchiTaton]

...an aspect that civilization has never simulated!

This literally what war weariness is supposed to do.
Now if you dont like it then you suggest a serie of in-game changes to make it work as intended.

 

[luca 83]

This literally what war weariness is supposed to do.
Now if you dont like it then you suggest a serie of in-game changes to make it work as intended.

Already done 1 prolonged war causes revolts among civilians and potential revolutions 2 causes defections among soldiers 3 can cause economic collapse and thus causes revolts 4 the budget is at a loss: thus revolts and potential revolutions, 5 putch military insurrection and overthrow of the government, 6 civil war 7 compromise peace: cession of territories to end the war

 

[BuchiTaton]

Already done 1 prolonged war causes revolts among civilians and potential revolutions 2 causes defections among soldiers 3 can cause economic collapse and thus causes revolts 4 the budget is at a loss: thus revolts and potential revolutions, 5 putch military insurrection and overthrow of the government, 6 civil war 7 compromise peace: cession of territories to end the war

The already in-game system have tables with values of first how each action of war have specific weight to cause the reduction of stability (under the amenities system). There are info online about how it determinated what is a "prolongated" and "badly going" war with variables like the causes of the war and where is taking place.So the in-game system is actually something working an better thinked that you vague idea. Also this system is linked to others that already address the following possible outcomes like how revolts can occur.

This is a constant problem with your NON-suggestions that are just demands for "realism" to replicate specific historical events, they are isolated, deterministic and unidirectional. Not for nothing you put a list of events that end in collapse, when the only aspect needed to detail was the way we know what a "bad going" war is and how much and how fast that generates social unrest.

You can see the info of how the current system works, explain what values of details of the mechanics should be changed or expanded since at the moment you still have just the general path for your wanted outcome but not a suggestion of how the in-game mechanics determines when a players is going into one outcome or another.

 

[luca 83]

The already in-game system have tables with values of first how each action of war have specific weight to cause the reduction of stability (under the amenities system). There are info online about how it determinated what is a "prolongated" and "badly going" war with variables like the causes of the war and where is taking place.So the in-game system is actually something working an better thinked that you vague idea. Also this system is linked to others that already address the following possible outcomes like how revolts can occur.

This is a constant problem with your NON-suggestions that are just demands for "realism" to replicate specific historical events, they are isolated, deterministic and unidirectional. Not for nothing you put a list of events that end in collapse, when the only aspect needed to detail was the way we know what a "bad going" war is and how much and how fast that generates social unrest.

You can see the info of how the current system works, explain what values of details of the mechanics should be changed or expanded since at the moment you still have just the general path for your wanted outcome but not a suggestion of how the in-game mechanics determines when a players is going into one outcome or another.

Civilization does not take into account the possible internal revolts , and the demands of the population , not and realism , are game mechanics and better depth should not end with a revolution always , but political movements ideologies are very important

 

[Patine]

Civilization does not take into account the possible internal revolts , and the demands of the population , not and realism , are game mechanics and better depth should not end with a revolution always , but political movements ideologies are very important

Napoleon was never meaningfully threatened by rebellion, revolution, or change of government in Metropolitan France, nor did Genghis or Kublai Khan in Mongolia. Roman Emperors only ever did from the elite in Rome. The U.S. withdrawl from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq was not out of fear of these things. Once he had utterly destroyed Corinth for attempting a revolt while he was on campaign, Alexander the Great never feared these things again in Macedon or Greece. The British Military fought all over it's Empire without these things being a factor. You make them sound like they should be universal and inevitable.

 

[luca 83]

Napoleon was never meaningfully threatened by rebellion, revolution, or change of government in Metropolitan France, nor did Genghis or Kublai Khan in Mongolia. Roman Emperors only ever did from the elite in Rome. The U.S. withdrawl from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq was not out of fear of these things. Once he had utterly destroyed Corinth for attempting a revolt while he was on campaign, Alexander the Great never feared these things again in Macedon or Greece. The British Military fought all over it's Empire without these things being a factor. You make them sound like they should be universal and inevitable.

Wrong again, after the Russian campaign Napoleon was forced to return to France because there was a risk of revolt, Alexander the Great was forced to return because of the revolt of his men and the discontent in Macedonia, the regime of Napoleon III collapsed after sedan, the British withdrew from Afghanistan under pressure from the public opini nion similar ro the the USA forced to withdraw also under public pressure, of course there is a percentage from 0 to 10 of discontent so there must not necessarily be a revolt but a pressure of the people

 

[Patine]

Wrong again, after the Russian campaign Napoleon was forced to return to France because there was a risk of revolt, Alexander the Great was forced to return because of the revolt of his men and the discontent in Macedonia, the regime of Napoleon III collapsed after sedan, the British withdrew from Afghanistan under pressure from the public opini nion similar ro the the USA forced to withdraw also under public pressure, of course there is a percentage from 0 to 10 of discontent so there must not necessarily be a revolt but a pressure of the people

These weren't the extistential threats to a national regime you were addressing in the OP. And, you still refuse to accept that many wars - the vast majority in history, by counted number - were not the level of investtment, intensity, and scope of a total war scenario. This fact has still been utterly ignored, numerous times, so, please, address that issue and stop throwing total war - or heavy investment war - examples at me.

 

[BuchiTaton]

... of course there is a percentage from 0 to 10 of discontent so there must not necessarily be a revolt but a pressure of the people

I agree with this part. I think it is valid to have some amount of negative effects from wars going bad.
The reason and consequences would vary, for example one aspect is the monetary cost of war, the supply avaibility, the casualities, the time and distance, the war justification, the objetives, your kind of society, etc.
But the real work is to depure all those concepts into a set of rules that are meaningfull, ballanced, simple, informative and manageable. Social collapse from bad going wars should be a worse scenario not the rule.

 

[luca 83]

I agree with this part. I think it is valid to have some amount of negative effects from wars going bad.
The reason and consequences would vary, for example one aspect is the monetary cost of war, the supply avaibility, the casualities, the time and distance, the war justification, the objetives, your kind of society, etc.
But the real work is to depure all those concepts into a set of rules that are meaningfull, ballanced, simple, informative and manageable. Social collapse from bad going wars should be a worse scenario not the rule.

Well causes of discontent food scarcity, 2 military defeat, 3 internal revolts, 4 military putch, strikes , opposition of an opposition party, fall of the capital, civil war as a consequence of a revolution, demands of a faction, not satisfied, low morale in the certainty of victory

 

[Marla_Singer]

Napoleon was never meaningfully threatened by rebellion, revolution, or change of government in Metropolitan France, nor did Genghis or Kublai Khan in Mongolia.

For the records, we usually make of Napoleon the warmonger, but Napoleonic wars were largely initiated by the rest of Europe which formed no less than 7 successive coalitions to kill the French Revolution and keep the ancient Aristocratic rule alive. That sounds off-topic but that actually explains why there wasn't war-weariness in France as the country was fighting for a new model of society that its neighbours wanted to annihilate. And that is as much true in metropolitan France as it is in the Caribbeans with Toussaint Louverture fighting for the emancipation of slaves.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Not really that all those factors are what “manpower” traditionally connotes.

Civ 5 has a fine manpower mechanic that puts a soft limit on how many military units you can create. It didn’t require a complex population mechanic.

I don't think that's what Luca had in mind. And the Civ5 support system only restricts the number of units you can have at a time, it doesn't take into account manpower losses due to recruitment and military defeats, in fact losing units is better for the economy, because the upkeep cost for every unit decreases.

Humankind, for all its flaws (which God knows I've ranted enough about in their CFC forum) has in my opinion a better system than Civ5 or Civ6's. Every unit you create reduces population of the city by one. This simulates the effects of military recruitment so lacking in Civs5&6; 1) losing valuable manpower 2) needing a large population base to sustain heavy losses. So if you're a moderately populated nation you'll choose your battles more carefully and try to avoid losses as much as possible. If you're big you can afford to throw everything at the enemy, and then train more armies if they die, the only restricting factor being time.

Humankind has also a war support system which gauges how much popular support there is for your war. At zero war support you just unconditionally surrender. You gain war support from winning battles and killing enemy units. Again this also has a flawed implementation in Humankind, as you can wipe out successive naval invasions and still have to surrender your cities because more of your units died than theirs even if they failed to get a hold on your continent. Still, it's better than the Civ conceit of just throwing units into the war machine without any meta repercussions.

In Civ you get this scenario where unit recruitment is tied to Production. If you have Mines, Quarries and Industrial Districts you can just pump out units like nobody's business regardless of how many losses you take. This was the case in one of my most recent Civ6 runs. I would kill 2 units of theirs every turn, and 3 turns later 4 more had joined the fray, they just had so many cities and Production.