Realistic benefits of (early) war

[Altisma]

I understand why you feel something needs changing, and i understand why you feel like something has been lost. I do too. However, this can be restored simply by increasing AI aggression expansion just a little. I don't think we need AI aggression or expansion as high as it was before, as i've found the (relative) peace early on allows for more interesting late game (which is FAR better than it was before IMO - i used to be unable to complete a game post renaissance because i had effectively already won). However, i feel the balance isn't quite there for my liking yet, but i think the aggression is the only issue, not the benefits of warfare.

Adding gold incentives will do nothing to help the AI, it will only encourage more aggression from the player. The incentives you have suggested are just plain ridiculous in the extent of advantages given against the potential cost. They will make the game a war simulator. There is plenty enough advantage to war as is for the reasons i've already listed. Additionally, gold is not the main concern when going to war. You lose out on all aspects of your economy by prepping and taking part in war, so gold incentives would still be pittance to make up for it.

Essentially, i think this is vastly unneccessary and would end up with the AI being picked on by the human player, and making the game far too easy by generating easy snowballs after one successful war. The game is already balanced for war. There is clearly a benefit to war economically, and it is a direct path to victory. It does not need changing. The game is fine in this regard. The lack of early war is an different and unrelated issue that you are conflating with the lack of short term rewards for warfare, and that's where i think our point of disagreement is.



It would be a nice little mini "colonisation"-esque thing i think. It would really incentivise aggressive barb hunting and early military build up if there are barb camps around luxury resources. +4 happiness without the negative for cities and pop? Yes please. At the same time it would be quite a difficult thing to do, and more difficult still to defend if it's a way off. It would be interesting to investigate how many tiles would be a nice touch without being a gamebreaking leg up on everyone else.

It would also make Germany VERY relevant again

The thing is with early wars is, after 4-6 units, your losing gold. With only 2 trading routes for the ancient era you can't do rushes without ruining your science and gold. That's it, its not a competitive choice, its just a inferior choice to go to war early game. Huns for example is a early kill your neighbor civilization however doing so means your putting yourself at negative gold for the next 30 turns. You also aren't going to be making gold with even a small army.

Along with wide empires, wars in the ancient/classical era are now inferior strategies.

 

[superliminal]

The thing is with early wars is, after 4-6 units, your losing gold. With only 2 trading routes for the ancient era you can't do rushes without ruining your science and gold. That's it, its not a competitive choice, its just a inferior choice to go to war early game. Huns for example is a early kill your neighbor civilization however doing so means your putting yourself at negative gold for the next 30 turns. You also aren't going to be making gold with even a small army.

Along with wide empires, wars in the ancient/classical era are now inferior strategies.

I think it forces you to be more selective with your wars. An early war can still be viable, if say there's a nearby capital with a few wonders, or another civ settled a desirable peace of land nearby. It makes sense that wars would be expensive and there are ways to manage that, such as the honor finisher, razing cities, and lucrative peace settlements.

With the Huns example, you'd want to be razing cities anyway with their UA, which provides gold as well as not taking on the burden of a poorly developed city.

In short, I think it's still a viable strategy, you just don't want to steamroll over every neighbor you come across, but by choosy who you pick on.

 

[Buccaneer]

There are some civs (with good early UU) that should be great at early wars but some of them apparently are not able to take advantage of such. Perhaps honor would help or more gold incentives but mostly they should ramp up early and often before their window closes.

 

[OmniPotent42]

Just allow Pop from razing cities to relocate to your cities (or maybe half of pop if too op) and buff the gold plunder bonus. It's rediculous that well developed late game cities only yield 300 gold.

 

[tomplum68]

Do you get the same penalty if you are given a city in a peace negotiation as when you forcibly take it?

 

[superliminal]

Do you get the same penalty if you are given a city in a peace negotiation as when you forcibly take it?

Yes and no. You still have to puppet or annex with the happiness hit, but the city doesn't lose population/building. I'm not sure if military building are destroyed.

 

[Granty555]

Whilst some of these suggestions would probably help some of the lesser warmonger-ish civs compete in the early war game, they would be hideously OP in the hands of the civs that are already really suited to it.

I mean, have you played Assyria? I'm a mushroom cloud laying mo.....