War weariness

[KillingMeSoftly]

Personally, not a fan of war exhaustion. It works well in Europa Universalis, as it tries to be much more realistic than Civilization. Civ is kind of an educational fantasy game, if that makes any sense. As mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd rather there be some kind of international trade, and quite lucrative with nations who are in good relations with you. Will give a benefit for peace and take it away when you are at war with them, and have a reason to fill in the gaps in the map with roads.

 

[vonbach]

Please no war weariness. It was one of the most annoying mechanics in the game.
The last thing I need is some civ declaring on me and getting punished for it.
Or getting punished because I don't feel like having an enemy building up so
he can declare on me for the third time.

 

[Zenstrive]

The unhappiness is already a weary system. No to war weariness if the unhappiness system is as it is now.

 

[JamesCivFan]

The most annoying thing about the AI waging wars is not about happiness exactly. For example in my last Deity game, the Siamese declared war on turn 24, the war ended on turn 249 when I took their Capital. For all those turns he was bringing units every now and then, I was fending them off until I got to Stealth bombers on turn 192. Only then he considered making peace.

So the real annoyance is that the AI mostly values army strength when it comes to negotiating peace, resulting in such crazy wars.

Also, another thing that needs to be changed (that's more of the diplomacy aspect of CiV) is the fact that if the player declares twice everyone hates him, but we've all seen AI's declaring war like mad without caring about diplomatic hits. Yet, they still have friends around the globe.

So going back to the subject of making constant warring to give penalties to civs, I'd say that: 1) Put a diplomatic hit on breaking a deal, and make it bigger if the deal is bigger. 2) The AI's should get major diplomatic hits if declaring wars more than two times.

 

[AriochIV]

The most annoying thing about the AI waging wars is not about happiness exactly. For example in my last Deity game, the Siamese declared war on turn 24, the war ended on turn 249 when I took their Capital. For all those turns he was bringing units every now and then, I was fending them off until I got to Stealth bombers on turn 192. Only then he considered making peace.

I had a similar situation in my last game in which Babylon declared war in the early Renaissance and the war lasted until the end of the game which was won by Space Victory. He was on another continent and never made any move to attack me, but refused to consider peace (unless I would give him all my resources and three of my cities). If a war weariness mechanic had been in the game, it would have destroyed me, and there would have been nothing I could have done about it.

I would rather they fixed the totally broken diplomacy system before they even think about a war weariness feature.

 

[headcase]

I had a similar situation in my last game in which Babylon declared war in the early Renaissance and the war lasted until the end of the game which was won by Space Victory. He was on another continent and never made any move to attack me (...)

If war weariness was implemented, the unhappiness accumulated should be directly related to unit health lost to prevent this kind of situation from being affected.

Not that I'm saying it should be. A little more mutually beneficial trade would go a long way. And if war weariness were implemented, they should find ways to make it affect the larger civ more, for gameplay balance and probably it would be more realistic too.

 

[nokmirt]

I had a similar situation in my last game in which Babylon declared war in the early Renaissance and the war lasted until the end of the game which was won by Space Victory. He was on another continent and never made any move to attack me, but refused to consider peace (unless I would give him all my resources and three of my cities). If a war weariness mechanic had been in the game, it would have destroyed me, and there would have been nothing I could have done about it.

I would rather they fixed the totally broken diplomacy system before they even think about a war weariness feature.

No war weariness for the defender, or at least reduced much more than the attacker. If he declared on you, war weariness would effect his empire not yours, or much moreso than yours, bringing him eventually to the peace table. Unless he is able to defeat you enough or conquer you, in the time he has available while his country has the strength and will to continue fighting. (Both countries at war should be evaluated, and from the outset it should be decided how they stack up against each other.) This way wars cannot go on forever. However they should not be too short either, a well thought out balanced system for war weariness should be thought out. Then it should be tested thoroughly before being implemented.

I do feel the defender should have the advantage from a war weariness standpoint. However, I still feel that the defender has to fight back and win victories to stop the agressor. If the defender wins more battles and kills more units than the aggressor war weariness should accumulate much faster for them. If its the other way around, then the defender begins to feel war weariness more rapidly and the attacker loses it. War weariness should be tied in with the production capacity and the military strength of both empires at war. If you have a large powerful aggressor against a little empire, the little empire should still have a chance to win. The larger empire would have to act fast and defeat the smaller nation before war weariness gets to extreme levels. In the meantime the defender has to fend off those attacks in a big way to make the larger empire build up war weariness faster, causing them to halt their war and talk things over.

The Greco Persian Wars are an example of a smaller collection of Greek city states effectively defeating the vast outrageously more powerful Persian empire.

Another example in favor of the larger empire would be the German invasion of Belgium in 1940. In which the Belgian's were defeated very rapidly and knocked out of the war. Both of these
inevitabilities should be able to occur depending on what happens during a war.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

If it were implimented I think the important contributers should be ammount of dammage taken or units lost and distance to capitol.

If you are fighting to recapture your second city you should get less of a penalty than when fighting to defend some far off colony.

If you are fighting a successfull war on the higher difficulty the AI will be loosing alot more units than you anyway.

That being said I do like to fight a German LK war where I sacrifuce alot of them to save my key units, I've taken the Korean capitol defended by Hawatcha this way, that would end up being very expensive.

 

[Trias]

Lets first review how war weariness worked in civ4 (because a lot of the comments here show complete ignorance on that matter):

In civ4, you would gain wear weariness from participating in combat actions outside you cultural borders.*

+1.5% for losing an offensive battle
+0.5% for winning an offensive battle
+1% for each defensive battle (win or lose)
+3% for capturing a city.
(some stuff related to nuking/being nuked)

So, even in civ4, you would not have a problem with war weariness in a purely defensive war.

*Our more specifically, from combat actions taking place on tiles where you were not the dominant culture. So, this could include some tiles within your borders, if they had belonged to an eliminated civ for a long time.

War weariness + (nearly) permanent war with everyone if you declare more than once = very stupid system, no?

One of the main functions of a war weariness system is to prevent permanent wars. One of the main reasons civ5 has permanent wars, is because there is no penalty for staying at war.

Personally, not a fan of war exhaustion. It works well in Europa Universalis, as it tries to be much more realistic than Civilization. Civ is kind of an educational fantasy game, if that makes any sense. As mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd rather there be some kind of international trade, and quite lucrative with nations who are in good relations with you. Will give a benefit for peace and take it away when you are at war with them, and have a reason to fill in the gaps in the map with roads.

International trade works well to prevent wars and encourage the fostering of friendships. (This is especially true, if the value of trade increases for extended periods of peace.)

It does not work so well, to stimulate the end of wars. The reason for this, is that the penalty for war (no international trade) does not increase as the war lingers on. This is especially tricky for the AI, since once they decide going to war is worth sufferring the penalty, it is hard to get them to reconsider if this penalty stays flat over time. (In general, AI decision making is greatly helped by systems with a more continuous progression. This for example is a reason why the AI in civ5 is not very good in dealing with global happiness system, because the consequences are very discrete.)

 

[MARDUK80]

Very good points Trias

One of the main functions of a war weariness system is to prevent permanent wars. One of the main reasons civ5 has permanent wars, is because there is no penalty for staying at war.

International trade works well to prevent wars and encourage the fostering of friendships. (This is especially true, if the value of trade increases for extended periods of peace.)

(In general, AI decision making is greatly helped by systems with a more continuous progression. This for example is a reason why the AI in civ5 is not very good in dealing with global happiness system, because the consequences are very discrete.)

I would really like to see return of War Weariness mechanic along with International Trade (and City Heath + Pollution/Smog/Oil Spills in Water tiles = Environmentalism + Random Events). These elements would give CiV a new dimension without making the game too complex (favoring simple gameplay choises/rules when adding these mechanics).

 

[theadder]

I would really like to see return of War Weariness mechanic along with International Trade (and City Heath + Pollution/Smog/Oil Spills in Water tiles = Environmentalism + Random Events). These elements would give CiV a new dimension without making the game too complex (favoring simple gameplay choises/rules when adding these mechanics).

I should really like to see international trade; that seems to be one of the most lacking things in the game at the moment.

There's very little in the way of indirect interactions between the different civilisations. I'm holding out the faintest of hopes that this has made its way into Gods & Kings and they simply have not got around to telling us yet; we're still lacking a lot of details and so, while it is unlikely, this isn't impossible. Unfortunately it will probably either never come or not until the next expansion.

As far as the war weariness goes, I am a bit more undecided. I don't see it making a great deal of difference to the duration and timing of wars initiated by the AI; at least this isn't likely to be the case unless there is a lot of work on the AI itself. Its judgement is poor and that is what needs the work. In the current state, it is not going to assess the rewards and losses properly, regardless of what they are.

Still, if it was confined largely to the initiating party, rather than the target as some have indicated above, then that should be a good system generally.

 

[Trias]

I should really like to see international trade; that seems to be one of the most lacking things in the game at the moment.

I completely agree. An international trade system would be very beneficial to the game. I do think that we will probably have to wait for a second expansion though.

As far as the war weariness goes, I am a bit more undecided. I don't see it making a great deal of difference to the duration and timing of wars initiated by the AI; at least this isn't likely to be the case unless there is a lot of work on the AI itself. Its judgement is poor and that is what needs the work. In the current state, it is not going to assess the rewards and losses properly, regardless of what they are.

One of the points I was making before is that a war weariness system may actually be very beneficial for the AI decision making. War weariness acts as an increasing pressure for the AI to get out of a war. Currently, if the AI makes a bad decision to go to war, it is likely to stay in the war (possibly indefinitely) based on the same bad logic. War weariness means that the AI will eventually decide to get out of the war. Bad descision making in this case just means that it gets out of the war a few turns too early or late. (Which should be less disastrous.)

At the very least, it should the AI make more realistic decisions from an immersion perspective when it comes to making peace.

Still, if it was confined largely to the initiating party, rather than the target as some have indicated above, then that should be a good system generally.

I think generally war weariness should largely target the aggressor no matter how started the war. The civ4 rule where only combat actions outside your cultural borders counted towards WW, was a good one I think.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

I do agree that extended peace should allow international trade, which would discourage long wars without making them impractical.

There seems to be a strong opinion that additional war-weariness induced happiness penalties would be unpopular. What if war weariness affected some other factor, like growth? Suppose that for every hit point of damage received by one of your units, your civilization produces 0.2 fewer food that turn (spread over all your cities). (This uses the new 100 hp/unit rule).

This way, military expansion comes at the cost of reduced domestic growth. This would parallel rationing during major wars in the early 20th century, and more generally resource reallocation during any historic war.

There are also posts suggesting war weariness should depend upon peace offerings. I don't think this should affect your own people - If you're crushing your hated enemy, and that enemy comes crawling begging for mercy, your people could be perfectly happy to continue eliminating them. It's the international reaction that should encourage acceptance of peace deals. I think that any time a civ rejects a peace offering in their favour, they should receieve an international diplomacy hit. Of course, this would be limited to one hit per turn, to prevent players from crippling AI diplomacy by spamming peace offerings.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Lets first review how war weariness worked in civ4 (because a lot of the comments here show complete ignorance on that matter):

In civ4, you would gain wear weariness from participating in combat actions outside you cultural borders.*

+1.5% for losing an offensive battle
+0.5% for winning an offensive battle
+1% for each defensive battle (win or lose)
+3% for capturing a city.
(some stuff related to nuking/being nuked)

So, even in civ4, you would not have a problem with war weariness in a purely defensive war.

So, in Civ4, you could also declare war and never do anything to fight them without consequence? That seems to be the biggest reason to want War Weariness. Otherwise, we're just talking about some method to limit offensive wars, which there already is (the happiness penalty when you capture cities).

 

[Carl5872]

I really think we should have some kind of war weariness, but we need different factors to set the level of weariness.
If you are the defender you shouldn`t be punished too hard for being at war, likewise if you are winning.
Different goverments should also handle war weariness differently. Fascism, Monarhies and Communism should make it easier to be aggressive, while democracies gives you bonuses when being the defender.
Going down the piety tree should reflect religious wars, like increased weariness vs civs of same religion and reduced weariness when fighting civs with another religion.

There`s plenty of potential to make this system well in CiV.

Democracy does not equal peace. The United States, arguably the poster child of democracy expanded greatly through war. Almost everything West of the Louisiana Purchase was annexed through invasion of natives or sending citizens to what was at the time Mexican land and inciting rebellions to join the United States.

The operations in Korea and Vietnam while not technically wars, could still be labeled aggression where the United States for lack of a better term invaded.

I don't believe either communism or democracy are inherently more or less aggressive/defensive than one another.

 

[Trias]

So, in Civ4, you could also declare war and never do anything to fight them without consequence?

Not entirely. When you are at war, existing WW decays more slowly.

That seems to be the biggest reason to want War Weariness. Otherwise, we're just talking about some method to limit offensive wars, which there already is (the happiness penalty when you capture cities).

The happiness penalty for captured cities only limits conquest, not the duration of war. A WW mechanism, basically forces the aggressor to take a break once in while, giving the defender a window to recover. (Currently, civ5 offers little incentive for a cease fire if you are on the offensive.)

This is especially beneficiary for the AI at higher difficulty settings, because their bonuses mean that they recover faster than the human player.

 

[nokmirt]

Lets first review how war weariness worked in civ4 (because a lot of the comments here show complete ignorance on that matter):

In civ4, you would gain wear weariness from participating in combat actions outside you cultural borders.*

+1.5% for losing an offensive battle
+0.5% for winning an offensive battle
+1% for each defensive battle (win or lose)
+3% for capturing a city.
(some stuff related to nuking/being nuked)

So, even in civ4, you would not have a problem with war weariness in a purely defensive war.

We have to stop relying on examples from Civ 4. It is a completely different game. We have to come up with a system that fits with CiV. The same old thing is not going to work here.

If it were implimented I think the important contributers should be ammount of dammage taken or units lost and distance to capitol.

If you are fighting to recapture your second city you should get less of a penalty than when fighting to defend some far off colony.

If you are fighting a successfull war on the higher difficulty the AI will be loosing alot more units than you anyway.

That being said I do like to fight a German LK war where I sacrifuce alot of them to save my key units, I've taken the Korean capitol defended by Hawatcha this way, that would end up being very expensive.

I agree importance of key cities has to be a big factor. If you lose your key centers that drive your economy and production. Your ability to fight a war breaks down, when that happens your people become upset. Fear sets in. This is why who is winning and losing the war has to be important. Whether defender or aggressor.

 

[Trias]

We have to stop relying on examples from Civ 4. It is a completely different game. We have to come up with a system that fits with CiV. The same old thing is not going to work here.

There is nothing wrong at looking how things have worked in the past.

I agree importance of key cities has to be a big factor. If you lose your key centers that drive your economy and production. Your ability to fight a war breaks down, when that happens your people become upset. Fear sets in. This is why who is winning and losing the war has to be important. Whether defender or aggressor.

There is no reliable gameplay notion of "importance" of cities in civ5. You seem to be way off track of your intended goal of finding "a system that fits with civ5".

 

[nokmirt]

There is nothing wrong at looking how things have worked in the past.




There is no reliable gameplay notion of "importance" of cities in civ5. You seem to be way off track of your intended goal of finding "a system that fits with civ5".

Yes, there is because CiV is not CiIV no matter how you see it. They are by far two different games. What worked usually horribly in CiIV is not going to work in CiV.

And yes a cities importance should play a big factor in a reworked system for war weariness. If you take an important city away from an enemy empire it could lead to dire consequences.

Your right though there is no "importance" to actual cities in the current system. Do you know why? It has not been invented yet. These ideas are speculation. Do you understand now? If you do not I do not know how else to lay it out there so you grasp it. Sorry about that!

 

[Cyon]

Some thoughts:

I think that war weariness could be a great component in a future "Trade and Happines" expansion pack. International trade would hinder some senseless wars and war weariness could hinder others. I think that it would be better if happiness would be both global and local, with local unhappiness resulting in revolts. Short sucsessfull wars should actually boost happiness as many politicans who have domestic problems have discovered. The kind of modifiers that civ IV had seems quite good, and I think that it should be a specific negative modefier for every dead soldier on foreign ground. Maybe could defensive wars when they go really bad force you and the computer palyers to accept reasonable peace offers or risk cites revolting. Technology and SP like printing press could even out the diffrence between local and global happiness and buildings like propaganda minestry and warmemorial lessen the war weraness.

International trading, trade agreemnets, income from other persons using your traderoutes, visble trade route at sea that can pirated or attacked with subs.

On other intresting idea for an Happines & Trade expansion would be to have manufuctured luxeries: mosaic, chinaware, religious Icons, textiles, automobiles and electronics that only the first (or the first 2-3 players) that reach a certain tech or age, haves a certain culture level and certain raw materials - much like the wonders is unlocked in the wonder dlc scenario. One manufactured luxury per Age would make the ages a bit more relevant. Togheter with demands like "stop selling textiles to player X, I claim monopoly" could make diplomacy, trade and wars more integrated.

And here would war weariness apply nicly, declare war on a player because of he/she threatens your Monopoly on Chinaware but claim that it is a religius war to avoid a massive negative happiness modifier beacuse of war weariness.

What do you think? Sorry for bad spelling and brainstorming, it is late...