A case for Casus belli

[mo123567]

I was really excited for the addition of casus belli in Civ 6 for a couple of reasons.

1. I was hoping for a significant reduction in war monger penalties for "reasonable wars" such as defending allies or reclaiming stolen territory etc...

It seems that the AI still needs adjusting in this regard. The game still devolves into a pit of denouncements. I think a flat war monger penalty is a problem. Different civs should react differently depending on the situation, not just based on the leader's personality. (perhaps they do and I haven't noticed?) For example, there should be little to no war monger penalty from civs that follow the same religion as you do when you use casus belli to declare a holy war on another civ that follows a different religion. Perhaps you should even get a boost in relations and increased likelihood in assistance from fellow believers. Another example might include larger powers penalizing you less for using war of expansion on lesser civs unless they are in their perceived sphere of influence. There are many potential ways that casus belli could be tuned to generate a more intelligent response from the AI that would better reflect the subtleties of the current game.

2. This was more of a long shot but I was hoping that it would be a way for the AI to understand you a little better.

I am playing a game where Rome kept converting my cities despite promises not to so I used casus belli to declare a holy war. I razed a few of their cities, including their holy city, and took over 2 more cities including their capitol Rome. I then granted them peace. Literally the next turn, they were at it again. An apostle shows up and converts my city. I request for them to stop and I am right back to them not keeping their promises to stop converting my cities. They should know why I just decimated half of their empire because the casus belli I used should have been clear. Yet they immediately resume the behavior that they should know will lead to ruin. I would like to see the AI "learn" a bit more based on what I am clearly saying to them: "If you convert my cities I will destroy you". With little to no military left compared to the huge military presence I have very close to their borders, there should be no way that they would think converting my cities at this point is a good idea.


I still have high hopes for the potential of casus belli. I think some fine tuning would go a long way.

 

[MistyRonin]

I would like to see the AI "learn" a bit more based on what I am clearly saying to them: "If you convert my cities I will destroy you". With little to no military left compared to the huge military presence I have very close to their borders, there should be no way that they would think converting my cities at this point is a good idea.

I think, that's a good point. AI should keep a "log" of what demands you have done to them, and why other civs declared war on them.

I have to agree with the OP that the AI leaders act a bit like "Lemmings" pursing irrationally non-stop their agendas.

I mean, sending a flood of missioners to convert another player's cities even if the other player denounced and attacked you in the past for that reason, could be fine for certain "fanatical" leaders, like Philip or Saladin. But for those leaders that are not so much into religion, probably a more rational answer would be better.

 

[redwings1340]

I like the concept of causus belli, and I think they can actually work well. There just need to be more of them, they need to come earlier, and using them needs to feel worthwhile. Right now the warmonger penalty is so high it doesn't feel like there's much of a difference if I use them or not, and there are more situations that require a CB.

For example, there's really nothing that lets you go to war with a warmonger, which is a game design flaw currently, but could be fixable with CB.

 

[mo123567]

I mean, sending a flood of missioners to convert another player's cities even if the other player denounced and attacked you in the past for that reason, could be fine for certain "fanatical" leaders, like Philip or Saladin. But for those leaders that are not so much into religion, probably a more rational answer would be better.

I think Philip and Saladin should be more likely to deny requests or break promises and generally be more willing to sour relations regarding religious spread and they should prioritize sending out missionaries more but in the end, all AI leaders should share one agenda item that supersedes all else: Self Preservation. All leaders should be at least a little more cautious when clearly faced with being wiped off the map completely.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I think Philip and Saladin should be more likely to deny requests or break promises and generally be more willing to sour relations regarding religious spread and they should prioritize sending out missionaries more but in the end, all AI leaders should share one agenda item that supersedes all else: Self Preservation. All leaders should be at least a little more cautious when clearly faced with being wiped off the map completely.

I tend to agree. Sort of a Law of Robotics thing. Support <x> Agenda should be a lower priority than Don't Get Annihilated.

 

[Mesix]

I agree with what the OP said. I would even go one step further and say that some AI players should respect you more for fighting and winning a war and disrespect you as weak if you are always peaceful or accept weak terms to end a war. Having a warmonger next to you should be a completely different play style to having a cultural civ next door. Perhaps less war like civs would gain a lot of respect if you protect them with your war mongering as well.

In short, each civ should respond differently to warmongering based on their flavor and goals in the game.

 

[roscoepfox]

I was really excited for the addition of casus belli in Civ 6 for a couple of reasons.

1. I was hoping for a significant reduction in war monger penalties for "reasonable wars" such as defending allies or reclaiming stolen territory etc...

It seems that the AI still needs adjusting in this regard. The game still devolves into a pit of denouncements. I think a flat war monger penalty is a problem. Different civs should react differently depending on the situation, not just based on the leader's personality. (perhaps they do and I haven't noticed?) For example, there should be little to no war monger penalty from civs that follow the same religion as you do when you use casus belli to declare a holy war on another civ that follows a different religion. Perhaps you should even get a boost in relations and increased likelihood in assistance from fellow believers. Another example might include larger powers penalizing you less for using war of expansion on lesser civs unless they are in their perceived sphere of influence. There are many potential ways that casus belli could be tuned to generate a more intelligent response from the AI that would better reflect the subtleties of the current game.

2. This was more of a long shot but I was hoping that it would be a way for the AI to understand you a little better.

I am playing a game where Rome kept converting my cities despite promises not to so I used casus belli to declare a holy war. I razed a few of their cities, including their holy city, and took over 2 more cities including their capitol Rome. I then granted them peace. Literally the next turn, they were at it again. An apostle shows up and converts my city. I request for them to stop and I am right back to them not keeping their promises to stop converting my cities. They should know why I just decimated half of their empire because the casus belli I used should have been clear. Yet they immediately resume the behavior that they should know will lead to ruin. I would like to see the AI "learn" a bit more based on what I am clearly saying to them: "If you convert my cities I will destroy you". With little to no military left compared to the huge military presence I have very close to their borders, there should be no way that they would think converting my cities at this point is a good idea.


I still have high hopes for the potential of casus belli. I think some fine tuning would go a long way.

I totally agree with number 2. I think only one civ has ever kept their word about converting my cities so far (it was Russia). Pedro, who seems to be in all of my games never does. I actually kept playing a game I was going to abandon just long enough to crush him for it. He's the civ that caused me to make this rule. "If I have to ask you twice to stop converting my cities, the second time means I only asked because I need a few turns to amass my force. Then I'm going to kill your missionaries, take as many cities of yours that I can and completely rape and pillage your land. If you survive to see peace but you bother me again, you're dead." .

Actually that rule does not go for Pedro. He's dead the very second he gets on my nerves. I hate that guy.

 

[Kolyana]

I completely agree here. It has been something I've often mused on with the Civ series, and VI seems to highlight it more than ever: the AI has no "memory." It can't remember why you are friends, why you are enemies, threats given or received, actions that went well, or did not, why it's at war, what its objectives are, etc, etc. If it had some form of "log," if it could remember those key actions that led to good or bad results, then it would really shift my perception of the AI in general.

Right now the AI can't even "remember" 1/2 a turn ago, never mind understand the net result of a disastrous war and what started it ...