Gods and Kings will be more forgiving of wars, by some degree. Even still, a war weariness system should be adapted at some point. I feel that a war weariness system will make wars more objective minded, instead of full blown affairs that could conceivably last the entire game, or a large part of it. The AI and the human would have to make better military decisions based on the current capability of their empire at that time in the game.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
War weariness
- Thread starter beest
- Start date
Gods and Kings will be more forgiving of wars, by some degree. Even still, a war weariness system should be adapted at some point. I feel that a war weariness system will make wars more objective minded, instead of full blown affairs that could conceivably last the entire game, or a large part of it. The AI and the human would have to make better military decisions based on the current capability of their empire at that time in the game.
CivilizedPlayer
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 222
Really? I never heard that, unless you're referring to the fact that civ's will no longer hold grudges from the dawn of time to the space age. Can you provide a link, unless that's what you're talking about?
And constant war is punished in that: massive armies are difficult to sustain for long periods of time, rapid conquests will make your civ unhappy, and diplomacy is more difficult (I'm sure there's other reasons, but those are the key ones for me). So although the method of imposing "war weariness" is different from in other civ's, it's still there. Remember that in previous Civ games, their was no happiness meter, and therefore war weariness had to be imposed as a penalty in and of itself. Now citizens still get weary and unhappy during wartime, but it's a little more nuanced.
No, there will be wars based on religion first, and then later wars based on ideology. So in other words, when the game gets to around the Renaissance, how civs feel about each other religion wise will start to wane. Later with the the choice of social ideology (Freedom, Order, Autocracy), along with espionage, the game will have a more "Cold War" feel about it. Civs will fall into three different blocks.
This is what I was talking about when I mentioned wars will be a bit more forgiving, or at least potentially so. Along with the fact that grudges will not be all encompassing for the entire game. Anyway, this is not new information. This has been mentioned in several articles, interviews, and discussed in several threads. I am very surprised you have been in the dark about this all of this time.
Here is a link to a recent interview with Ed Beach.
http://www.gamereactor.eu/grtv/?id=29201 Around 3:50, and 6:24 in they talk about religion, diplomacy etc. He talks about "the changing nature of diplomatic relations through history", within the game, a much needed change IMO. And just think after you watch, you'll be all caught up with the rest of us. It'll be great!
bcaiko
Emperor
NO THANK YOU, no, no, nononono.
Unhappiness already doesn't affect the AI like it does the human player. All this would do is cripple the human player. You already face happiness issues if you go on a puppeting spree, i.e. I just don't get what this proposal would accomplish.
Unhappiness already doesn't affect the AI like it does the human player. All this would do is cripple the human player. You already face happiness issues if you go on a puppeting spree, i.e. I just don't get what this proposal would accomplish.
With the changes to diplomacy, perhaps the same system present in the game for war weariness, will work just fine. I really have no problem with it. The war weariness idea is speculation anyway, there has been no mention of a change to the current happiness system. I mean in the present game, you can stay at war for long periods, but you have only so much happiness for conquering. Truly I am used to that part of the game. The huge issue is diplomacy and the AI. That's why they are concentrating those issues for this expansion.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
OK, I think that's a good argument for why to bring it back. It would also help the AI, who is likely to stay in "war mode" and build units when there's no realistic threat of attack.
So here is my proposal:
War wariness affects global happiness over time. It is diminished if they declared war on you or you are in Autocracy or Order. However, being successful in battle will not diminish it. Finally, each turn you offer a straight up peace treaty, war weariness will diminish.
That way this won't reward military conquest and it won't punish you for being stuck in a war you can't get out of.
I think war weariness should decrease the AI`s "black knight syndrome". I believe the AI lacks a will to survive which kicks in when the war is sure to be lost. Any civ should at some point be forced to surrender and make peace when resistance is futile and jeopardises the existence of the civ.
Think of Japan at the final stage of WW2, they had a mindset that didn`t allow war weariness, yet the opted for surrender and survival when all hopes were lost after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In Civ I may stand with a massive army right outside an enemy capital, and they still do not surrender. In that particular instance I believe the people should revolt and accept the peace offering, simply to survive and live to fight another day.
In return I believe an agressor who declines a surrender and keeps fighting to conquer a beaten enemy should receive a massive diplo hit from all civs, except their allies.
Think of Japan at the final stage of WW2, they had a mindset that didn`t allow war weariness, yet the opted for surrender and survival when all hopes were lost after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In Civ I may stand with a massive army right outside an enemy capital, and they still do not surrender. In that particular instance I believe the people should revolt and accept the peace offering, simply to survive and live to fight another day.
In return I believe an agressor who declines a surrender and keeps fighting to conquer a beaten enemy should receive a massive diplo hit from all civs, except their allies.
CivilizedPlayer
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 222
Just watched that whole video (I actually never watched it before, somehow, so thanks for that link). But nowhere in that video (or anywhere else, to my knowledge) did it say anything about religious or ideological wars, he just said that that those things affect diplomacy. I suppose that means it could lead to wars, but that doesn't seem to be the focus. In other words, I never heard him say that one civ would declare war on another just for the sake of religion. Furthermore, I don't see how that makes the war system more forgiving? (Although I do see how that applies to your other bit, about how civs don't hold grudges the whole game. That really will make warring while maintaining diplomatic relations a little easier.)
We don't know exactly what the changes to the diplomacy system are except that it's supposedly "better", so I think it's premature to assert that it will really be any better than the current system. We can hope, but I'm not holding my breath.
Claims like "the AI is better" and "the game will run faster" I will not believe until I see it for myself. Patches that claimed to do both or either often actually did the opposite.
Claims like "the AI is better" and "the game will run faster" I will not believe until I see it for myself. Patches that claimed to do both or either often actually did the opposite.
Also "better" can be subjective. What one might believe as a change for the better could also be viewed as a change for the worse for someone else (and vice-versa). In my view, adding and/or changing civs, techs, buildings, wonders and units are all natural changes that are typically better (i.e., adding more diversity and choices). Adding new systems or mechanics may not be, esp. if they give us even more of an advantage over the AI in their usage.
CivilizedPlayer
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 222
Well put. The new mechanics actually do sound like they have potential, but I refuse to get excited until I am actually playing a game and can notice the AI's improvements. I am still afraid that upon entering the Rennaissance, the AI will suddenly all start liking me again because in the course of one turn, they suddenly decided to stop caring about religious differences. And the Social Policy blocs could also be interesting, but only if Autocracy and Order are improved hugely. Otherwise, I will still be picking Freedom and hoping for the best, which doesn't sound like a very fun mechanic.
The secret to war weariness would be to apply it only in enemy territory.
For example, every attack I make in nonfriendly territory applies X amount of weariness. Attack in friendly territory does not apply weariness. Considering the system already can apply bonuses and penalties for attacking in friendly/non-friendly territory, this seems like an easy thing to implement.
So aggressors are penalized while defenders gain an increasing advantage since they are not affected by weariness.
For example, every attack I make in nonfriendly territory applies X amount of weariness. Attack in friendly territory does not apply weariness. Considering the system already can apply bonuses and penalties for attacking in friendly/non-friendly territory, this seems like an easy thing to implement.
So aggressors are penalized while defenders gain an increasing advantage since they are not affected by weariness.
tithin
Merely Marauding.
This is already in the game as the warmonger penalty. I believe it applies after you wipe out a civ from the game completely, though sometimes it doesn't show up straight away. More warlike civs don't care if you're a warmonger as long as you're not close to them.
I figured your response would be something similar to that. Well no one really knows yet. However, if religion does affect diplomacy and one religion has a potential to not like another due to conflicting interests, then there is a distinct possibility for war. It is not a foregone conclusion though this will be the result of diplomacy.After civs get into idealogical blocs, there could be some discord there as well. Don't you think? Which could lead to wars.
The fact remains that wars caused by religious differences will go by the wayside as time goes on. They are not going ot last the entire game. Also, your very good friends in the medieval era may become your enemy later in the game due to differing ideologies. The result is more realistic and interesting diplomacy system with an air of unpredictability, due to religion, ideologies, intrigue, and espionage. Instead of the same old result game after game, like it is now.
I know that today from playing Fall of the Samurai. In that game the AI knows it, if you besiege a city and wait a turn, the AI will come out an attack. CiV AI needs to learn that as well.So are you saying if your in Autocracy or Order and are the defender, war weariness will diminish? Or are you saying if your in Autocracy or Order and are the agressor, war weariness will diminish?
The rest sounds logical, and the part if they declare war on you.
I wanted to say one thing. The side that is losing the war should accumulate more war weariness. For the side thats winning it should diminish. People love victories. That's why Napoleon said, "France will follow me to the stars if I give her another victory!" That also means the AI needs to be more aggressive and be able to capture cities, and not be on the defensive so much. Because Napoleon also said, "The side that stays within it fortifications........is beaten!"
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I'm saying that you get less war weariness no matter what if you have autocracy or order and you also get less war weariness if you are defending. I realize it doesn't make sense to reward the military policies, but it's a concession to historical flavor.
That's something I specifically don't want. That rewards conquest, which is already overpowered. Think about it, the other side is beating you. You have very little chance of winning. Next thing you know, your unhapiness drops so low that you get barbarians popping up who pillage all your tiles. Then you lose production and can't build any more units, so the other side has an even bigger advantage.
For CiV that does make sense. I have been in a war recently on Emperor, where I was facing Russia and Japan, who invaded attacked my capital at the same time. I defended the best I could but lost it in the end. So the extra burden of added war weariness would have put me at a severe disadvantage. However, the human is much better at defending than the AI. So perhaps at hard levels this could help the AI against the human as levels get more difficult. Instead of giving the AI all of these insane bonuses for everything, maybe by just giving them a bit of an edge militarily would even the odds. Not sure though, it would have to be tested first.
If war weariness was simply its namesake I would agree. But like many things in Civ, its several concepts rolled into one.
Its models supply lines mechanics, the increasing difficulty in managing a large conquered empire, military attrition, and actual war weariness.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Wouldn't war weariness apply to the AI as well and hurt them if you're winning, since humans are better at offense?
Yes, humans are always better at offense and have been throughout the Civ series. One has to be cognizant of the fact that negative modifiers always hurt the AI more (unless they start with an artifically high positive level) and to say that the "AI needs to be fixed then" doesn't fully understand the issues involved. You work within that limitation and while certain concepts may sound good on paper, it (altering systems like war weariness) would cause a cascading effect.
Yes, humans are better at defending and offense. Although I have not proved it in my recent game against the AI on emperor.
Maybe humans should get a higher war weariness than the AI. Because we are better at moving our units for an offensive, so we should get less turns to attack the AI, before our empire goes to hell from unhappiness etc. At higher levels its get tougher and tougher for the human to be at war for extended periods against the AI. Better CiV players, have to think clearly about their objectives before declaring war. So declaring war becomes something you do not take lightly, its a huge decision to undertake.
And this is a seperate issue. My idea of giving the AI bonuses to their military units. I think I like the war weariness idea instead. At harder levels the human simply gets less time to fight wars and conquer.
See, because the way it is now. As a human, I can stay in a declared war with an AI civ even if my happiness has dwindled. I simply have to wait to build a courthouse in a captured city, or build my happiness up from buildings, luxuries, etc. Then I can continue on destroying the AI, until he has one city, or no cities, which is what they change it too. I hate the idea of leaving the AI civ alive. With war weariness this would be difficult. It could take several short sharp wars to accomplish this.
There could be a system put in place where you could declare a short war or a long war. This would have to depend on the production capacity of your empire. I do not know what the thresold should be. Certainly a more industrial productive civ could fight a war longer. These thresold levels needed to either fight a long, or short war, would have to be considered at each era, as production capacity increases over time. So if empire's production is over a certain level in the era your in then you can fight a long war if you choose. You still could opt to fight a shorter war, even if you have production for a long war.
Example...
War turns available by level to a human aggressor by difficulty level, before penalties overburden your empire. Same should go for an AI aggressor. Or perhaps the AI should get more turns?
Long War/Short War turns available.
Prince level 60/40
King level 55/35
Emperor level 50/30
Immortal level 45/25
Diety 40/20
I am not sure about the turn numbers, but what do you guys think?
Any changes would have to be tested of course. At this point I can walk on the AI pretty well on King level. In my recent game in a war with Alex. I took all his cities and left him with one, Knossos, a crappy desert city, a ghost town. And I did not make peace until I had all his other cities, because there was nothing making me do so. Is that really fair for the human to be able to do? I think their should be war weariness consequences. I should be able to take his cities sure, but in so many turns before war weariness occurs. This system certainly would not reward warmongers like myself, but I do stand by it, because it would be more realistic and fair.
Similar threads
- Locked
