"Border clashes"

Throughout history, empires have chaffed against one another _without_ actually going to war. Just units from two different nations, each thinking that even if they weren't within their borders, they were within their "sphere of influence" and therefore the other unit was tresspassing.

This situation seems apropos to Civ V because of the countless occasions where AI opponents make you want to punch its lights out. Settlers way the hell from their home, insisting on building a city right up next to one of your fledgling cities. It happens often enough, "Don't settle near our borders" just doesn't cut it. So much simpler to just attack the Settler _before_ it becomes an unwanted squatter. But is it enough of provocation to warrant going to full-fledged war?

Or, my favorite (in the masochistic sense), I've just spent four turns pounding down a barbarian encampment, bleeding myself down to <25%. But just before I'm about to move into the empty encampment when up pops an AI Scout or Brute that jumps in and steals the prize that _I_ bled for! He's a dirty thief! It's okay to just summarily execute a thief, isn't it? Why should I be obligated to go to war, just for executing a thief?

These things all occur out on the frontier, many leagues away from the Capitals filled with politicians and diplomats. Sure, the event may make for some diplomatic tension. (More than that if it happens frequently.) But do these occurrences mandate a full-blown Declaration of War?

I think most nations will consider taking a group of civilians as slaves as reason for war, yes.

Arachnofiend said:

I think most nations will consider taking a group of civilians as slaves as reason for war, yes.

Click to expand...

Well in the case of the Settlers, you could always give them back with the warning, "Don't come 'round here again if you know what's good for you." Besides given the local attitude of "This is _our_ territory!", dropping a foreign city there would itself be viewed as an act of war.

If they don't heed the, "Trespassers will be shot on sight" signs, it shouldn't be surprising when the trespassers get shot.

If you see settling near your territory as an act of war you should follow up on that threat. Don't expect your enemies to be impressed by a stern talking to.

Arachnofiend said:

If you see settling near your territory as an act of war you should follow up on that threat. Don't expect your enemies to be impressed by a stern talking to.

Click to expand...

Precisely! That's one of the problems with diplomacy in this game. All of the threats, warnings, saber-rattling, et al, amount to _nothing_ in the way of behavior modifications. It's war or NOTHING.

Which sort of indicates that Diplomacy mechanics are pretty much a FAIL, doesn't it?

Arachnofiend said:

If you see settling near your territory as an act of war you should follow up on that threat. Don't expect your enemies to be impressed by a stern talking to.

Click to expand...

This.

I told gandhi to not settle near me, he laughed at me and settled.

Instant dow and raze of the offending city.

Gandhi was shaken and gave me tribute just to make me go away. The tribute was unexpected, because I was fine with neutral peace. I made sure to denounce the offending civ befor I dow'd though xD

I actually like the idea of being able to attack without declaring war. Just look at recent history, it isn't unheard of for a country (namely the U.S.) to attack another to "teach a lesson" without getting bogged down in a war (see also Israel and Lebanon). Civ has always been very black and white with regards to war and peace while in reality that is not necessarily the case.

CaptainPatch said:

Precisely! That's one of the problems with diplomacy in this game. All of the threats, warnings, saber-rattling, et al, amount to _nothing_ in the way of behavior modifications. It's war or NOTHING.

Which sort of indicates that Diplomacy mechanics are pretty much a FAIL, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

if they break their promises they get diplo hit just like human player.
and if you attack some unpopular guy other AIs wont be upset about it
it was my experience in one of my latest games, i wiped shaka and everyone was happy about it. Except Alex. maybe, you should have DOF with a third player to not get warmonger penalty with him when you beat someone unpopular.

ofc this can be improved, say you get casus belli and warmonger points rebate for next 10(?) turns if you deside to punish the offender.

While i completely disagree with op, its kind of jarring when ai ignores your plea to not settle or convert, but if you war them you end up a villain.
There should be just wars, that wont penalty you unless you cross some line.
Like capping other civ cities near your capital, or up to 3 cities\Holy city if civ refuses to stop sending prophets without warmonger penalty

CaptainPatch said:

Precisely! That's one of the problems with diplomacy in this game. All of the threats, warnings, saber-rattling, et al, amount to _nothing_ in the way of behavior modifications. It's war or NOTHING.

Which sort of indicates that Diplomacy mechanics are pretty much a FAIL, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

I think "war or NOTHING" is kind of a false dichotomy. You're making war out to be a bigger deal than it has to be. You can declare war just to show someone you mean business and scare them into giving you their stuff. Sometimes war IS a tool of diplomacy.

I'd like to see this introduced as a feature, if only to see how long it takes Patch to show up here complaining about how the AI keeps stealing his Settlers without even having to declare war.

The "Border clashes would be an example of a case where you declare war.... but neither side does much, no large armies are assembled and marched into cities.. maybe some pillaging some unit killing, but otherwise, that is a border clash... ie you declare a white peace after a while and become friends later.

KrikkitTwo said:

The "Border clashes would be an example of a case where you declare war.... but neither side does much, no large armies are assembled and marched into cities.. maybe some pillaging some unit killing, but otherwise, that is a border clash... ie you declare a white peace after a while and become friends later.

Click to expand...

And since taking cities is what really screws your warmonger rating, once the peace comes, you aren't that bad off diplomatically.

But every possible situation needs its own sub-game! FOR REALIZM!

Polisurgist said:

I'd like to see this introduced as a feature, if only to see how long it takes Patch to show up here complaining about how the AI keeps stealing his Settlers without even having to declare war.

Click to expand...

I certainly don't miss the CivI AI fortifying units on tiles in my city radius, and even the occasional attack, all without declaring war.

CaptainPatch said:

These things all occur out on the frontier, many leagues away from the Capitals filled with politicians and diplomats. Sure, the event may make for some diplomatic tension. (More than that if it happens frequently.) But do these occurrences mandate a full-blown Declaration of War?

Click to expand...

It's even made less immersive in the sense that when the AI declare war, it will take actions that in truth aren't the logical answer to what provoked the war (you piss off a democracy with a WC proposal and building a few wonders, and they launch an attack on one of your cities.. in the modern era. Talk about overreacting!).

I sure would like Fireaxis to take into consideration for Civ VI a much more elaborate Diplomatic system which among other things would include more diversified and logical casus belli and a system to declare war goals (the nature of the war goals, and adhering or not to them would influence reactions from the AI civs to the war. If you launch a crusade, the odds the other Civs following that religion declare war on you would be very high during the Middle-Ages, much lower in the Renaissance and almost gone by Industrial. In the late game, launching an attack on a Freedom civ would also make it quite likely the others will declare war on you which in turn would make the Order civs declare war on them. World war).

If there was a cap to the number of trade routes any city could receive, that would be another casus belli, if a civ refused to let you its trading spot at the next cycle.

There could be pettier motives like cultural hatred, finding a civ too rich etc.

Casus belli and war goals would evolve through each era of the game, so would the reactions/diplomatic penalties you incur for those wars. You'd be far more likely to get a war over control of some strategic resources in the late game or for open borders, and ideological wars, while earlier wars would be waged to expand your borders (taking a neighbour's border towns), seize control of luxuries the other civ refuse to trade, to increase your wealth by forcing civs to pay tributes, to take control of a coastal city when you're landlocked, for the aforementioned crusades, or to take control of border forts and citadels (or to destroy them), or to control an area for defensive purposes (the AI might declare war to get control of river tiles so the river becomes the border between your land) . There could eventually be wars over the control of colonies.

A big improvement could be the possibility to buy/sell/exchange or otherwise seize by force land tiles.

War could be declared because after seizing tiles that let a civ send a trade route to another you refuse them open borders.

You could bully a player to get those 4 tiles beyond the river on your border, or for that well located hill that would let you build a citadel there and strengthen your defense system.

You could try to exchange control of that river tile for a mountain tile where you could build an observatory.

You could be offered a big sum to let the AI control of that source of 4 irons.

Etc.

crabe said:

You can declare war just to show someone you mean business and scare them into giving you their stuff. Sometimes war IS a tool of diplomacy.

Click to expand...

But once you do a DoW, then you're stuck in that war. The opponent invariably won't talk to you for several turns. All of the Allied City States get in on the act. And you can't get an end of hostilities until either you or the opponent has been hammered on, usually involving at least one city being hammered to at least almost-ready-to-surrender.

^^THAT^^ is a lot of bother when all you really wanted was to have the AI to keep its darn Settlers away from your borders. Or you just want to stomp on that sneaky Scout thief that just stole your barbarian gold.

If you have a border clash without a DoW, it leaves it to the affected AI to decide if the incident warrants going to war. Is it offended enough to actually declare war? Does it _really_ want to cross swords with the world's largest Military? (Which is the usual case with me.) Or will it get the message that it's a Bad Idea to send Settlers there? Naturally, diplomatic relations would suffer with that particular civ and its allies. But I'd wager 9 times out of 10, there would be no DoW -- which is a darn sight better than the 10 for 10 DoW that is now required.

If there was one thing in EK834 post that I want more than anything it is the ability to use military force to "seize" a tile. I know that in CiV you can use a citadel but I do not always want to use up a great general for one tile I want. I liked the culture flipping in CIV quite a lot and wouldn't mind that making a return but I also think giving such an ability to military units would be awesome.

CaptainPatch said:

But once you do a DoW, then you're stuck in that war. The opponent invariably won't talk to you for several turns. All of the Allied City States get in on the act. And you can't get an end of hostilities until either you or the opponent has been hammered on, usually involving at least one city being hammered to at least almost-ready-to-surrender.

^^THAT^^ is a lot of bother when all you really wanted was to have the AI to keep its darn Settlers away from your borders. Or you just want to stomp on that sneaky Scout thief that just stole your barbarian gold.

If you have a border clash without a DoW, it leaves it to the affected AI to decide if the incident warrants going to war. Is it offended enough to actually declare war? Does it _really_ want to cross swords with the world's largest Military? (Which is the usual case with me.) Or will it get the message that it's a Bad Idea to send Settlers there? Naturally, diplomatic relations would suffer with that particular civ and its allies. But I'd wager 9 times out of 10, there would be no DoW -- which is a darn sight better than the 10 for 10 DoW that is now required.

Click to expand...

No.. the system lets You decide whether or not to go to war...
Are You offended enough by their Settlers/pesky scouts to risk your troops getting bogged down in a quagmire?

If not then Don't use troops (9 times out of 10 you probably shouldn't declare war)

After all you could extend that logic to the while game...
I only wanted to take one of their smaller cities it should be the AI that has to declare war on me.

I only wanted to pillage their Aluminum... it should be the AI that has to declare war on me.



Declaring war is the diplomatic consequences to using military... you (and the AI) get to decide if the diplomatic act of war (ie using military) means that you engage in real military conflict or not. (ie military consequences like armies lost and cities conquered)

Every plea I see here for a "casus belli" system basically amounts to "It's unfair that the AI stops liking me when I start killing people."

I still can't see the sense in it.

McSaucy4418 said:

If there was one thing in EK834 post that I want more than anything it is the ability to use military force to "seize" a tile. I know that in CiV you can use a citadel but I do not always want to use up a great general for one tile I want. I liked the culture flipping in CIV quite a lot and wouldn't mind that making a return but I also think giving such an ability to military units would be awesome.

Click to expand...

I've been wanting that in Civ like forever.

It would be great and make war more realistic. Military units could occupy a tile giving you its benefits while it stays there, and there would be a treaty negotiation screen. You could negotiate with the civ you're at war with, e.g. highlight which tiles you wish the AI to give you to agree to sign peace,

You could return a conquered city but ask for several tiles you occupy, or you give back the land but ask for its resource for 45 turns.

Of course deals like that would pretty much lead to another war later as the AI or you decide to attempt to retake your lost territory... which would be quite realistic. Enventually it could lead you to take an enemy city or two to get a better border this time. A bit the feeling of the wars in Renaissance Italy...