Casus Belli and Denouncements

[Stringer1313]

Has this been explored in any of the videos yet, or explained how this works? (Sorry I haven't watched all of them). When you denounce, can you denounce for only specific (legitimate?) reasons, or is it just a general denouncement for the purpose of having a casus belli?

I really hope that you can only denounce for specific legitimate reasons, and then only if they fail to fix their behavior on that specific point do you have a casus belli for declaring war (limiting war weariness). So for example, one of the denounce options might be "stop settling close to me", but that option would be grayed out if they haven't actually been settling close to you. And if you denounce on that basis, you would only get a casus belli if they went ahead and settled another city close to you. And of course, you could totally ignore casus belli and declare a surprise war, at a high war weariness penalty (which presumably increases over time since in ancient times war was a fact of life).

I hope it's not just the totally pointless/generic denouncements from Civ 5, that are not tied to any thing in particular, in which case casus belli does nothing more than require you to denounce early and is a meaningless mechanic.

 

[smartcanuck1988]

I'm interested in this aspect too. I think so far all we know is that a "formal war" would have to happen after denouncement. Either they denounced you or you denounce them. If the latter, there's some delay before you can declare war yourself. I haven't personally seen the vids about that. But I'm not sure if there are conditions to be met to be able to denounce someone.

If denouncing is only meant to delay the war, giving time for the defender to prepare, then I'm not sure how well this will work. You can simply prepare your military before you denounce, so that time delay is only making your military more powerful.

I much prefer what you suggest. To denounce based on a reason. Similar to the triggers that we human players have to hit before the AI denounces us. That logic is there somewhere, so why not bring it up to lock/unlock certain denouncement options. Each different casus belli will have a different war goal and so your warmongering can be kept in check if you go beyond what's expected of the war goal (e.g. settling too close, the war goal is to take the close city). Having said that, I do see the potential in us feeling there is a justified reason for war but the game logic isn't allowing for it. But that's something that can be improved over time.

 

[Stringer1313]

I'm interested in this aspect too. I think so far all we know is that a "formal war" would have to happen after denouncement. Either they denounced you or you denounce them. If the latter, there's some delay before you can declare war yourself. I haven't personally seen the vids about that. But I'm not sure if there are conditions to be met to be able to denounce someone.

If denouncing is only meant to delay the war, giving time for the defender to prepare, then I'm not sure how well this will work. You can simply prepare your military before you denounce, so that time delay is only making your military more powerful.

I much prefer what you suggest. To denounce based on a reason. Similar to the triggers that we human players have to hit before the AI denounces us. That logic is there somewhere, so why not bring it up to lock/unlock certain denouncement options. Each different casus belli will have a different war goal and so your warmongering can be kept in check if you go beyond what's expected of the war goal (e.g. settling too close, the war goal is to take the close city). Having said that, I do see the potential in us feeling there is a justified reason for war but the game logic isn't allowing for it. But that's something that can be improved over time.

Exactly. If denouncments are required for casus belli, people will just do all their preparations in advance. I guess the only "cost" to denouncing is that it theoretically alerts the other nation to begin preparing for war. And in the meantime you can always do a surprise war, which has minimal costs in ancient eras.

If they do this mechanic, you can also get alert messages warning you if YOU are about to give somoene who has denounced you a casus belli, e.g., "warning: you are about to settle a city near their territory, which will give them a casus belli" or something more eloquent than that.

Having a system like this would also allow some civs to have abilities based on this, e.g., expanded casus belli options or whatever, and have civics/technologies unlock new casus belli. You could have casus belli based on religion, or revenge, or (in later eras) someone merely being the dominant civ---perhaps unique casus belli based on your chosen leader's historical agenda. There are a lot of creative avenues here.

 

[Stringer1313]

OK I just so mazobir's video in which denouncements are definitely the same thing as in Civ 5. A meaningless click with zero context. sigh

 

[apocalypse105]

I hope they remove the warmonger penalty it doesnt make any sence.. its annoying that you cant war once or else you are warmonger... Should get penalty for taking a capital(domination victory )

 

[DemonMaster]

I hope they remove the warmonger penalty it doesnt make any sence.. its annoying that you cant war once or else you are warmonger... Should get penalty for taking a capital(domination victory )

There are no warmonger penalties in the early game, penalties will come with time. But then you will have a formal war declaration (i.e. dow with a cassus belli).

So, yes in the early game, you can go to war left and right and when "civilisation" have caught up with you, you have formal wars (probably by denouncing first).

 

[tranx]

You should be able to have a casus belli only if you have negative modifiers in diplomacy.

 

[King Jason]

If denouncing is only meant to delay the war, giving time for the defender to prepare, then I'm not sure how well this will work. You can simply prepare your military before you denounce, so that time delay is only making your military more powerful.

It's still beneficial to the defender. If the A.I. has military in one area of the map and you denounce, they could have 5 turns to at least consider shifting their military back to their territory or toward whatever direction you're coming from.

At the end of the day if your preparations for a war mean you're going to sweep the opponent, there's no mechanic that's going to save them. I think the real goal is preventing the player from prepping their army, position-wise, before the fighting actually begins.

This is why two different mechanics were added in the game over the series - first, the ejection of your troops from enemy territory after a DoW - believe it or not at one point you could just surround your enemies and then take their stuff without them ever being able to stop it.

A similar diplomatic penalty came along in civ5 where A.I. would be suspicious of your militar on their border. This allowed the player to take a diplo hit if they're trying to set up a sneak attack by massing troops on a border and then DoWing the next turn.

The Surprise/formal war feature seems just another addition to help the A.I. from being taken off guard by a player.

You should be able to have a casus belli only if you have negative modifiers in diplomacy.

That doesn't really make sense - England dislikes you because you guys don't share a continent so you have the right to attack her?

OK I just so mazobir's video in which denouncements are definitely the same thing as in Civ 5. A meaningless click with zero context. sigh

The player has a mind of their own. I can denounce a civ for any reason I choose. For example, Quin would likely denounce and inevitably attack me for wonder spam. Pedro isn't going to do that because he doesn't care if I build I build wonders - he will however denounce and attack me for spamming GP, which Quin wouldn't do. They can both obviously do this for multitudes of other reason, not merely restricted to agendas but also the flow of the game; Warmonger penalties, differing governments, demands/refusals of trade deals, territorial disputes, etc. That's why the modifiers exist.

I, not having a programmed personally, can Denounce and attack them for any reason I want.

 

[apocalypse105]

There are no warmonger penalties in the early game, penalties will come with time. But then you will have a formal war declaration (i.e. dow with a cassus belli).

So, yes in the early game, you can go to war left and right and when "civilisation" have caught up with you, you have formal wars (probably by denouncing first).

But how much time do you need before you can dow after denouncing .. because you can just denounce and then declare war the same turn no worries and no penalties..

or are there some turns between..

I just dont like the fact you cant capture cities withouth beeing embargod or ganged up by the AI in civ 5 especially on large maps thats annoying.

 

[smartcanuck1988]

It's still beneficial to the defender. If the A.I. has military in one area of the map and you denounce, they could have 5 turns to at least consider shifting their military back to their territory or toward whatever direction you're coming from.

At the end of the day if your preparations for a war mean you're going to sweep the opponent, there's no mechanic that's going to save them. I think the real goal is preventing the player from prepping their army, position-wise, before the fighting actually begins.

This is why two different mechanics were added in the game over the series - first, the ejection of your troops from enemy territory after a DoW - believe it or not at one point you could just surround your enemies and then take their stuff without them ever being able to stop it.

A similar diplomatic penalty came along in civ5 where A.I. would be suspicious of your militar on their border. This allowed the player to take a diplo hit if they're trying to set up a sneak attack by massing troops on a border and then DoWing the next turn.

The Surprise/formal war feature seems just another addition to help the A.I. from being taken off guard by a player.

Yeah it's always better for the defender to know even 3 turns ahead of time that a war is likely coming, but for the attacker side of things: having a simple Denounce button is helping the attacker avoid a major diplo hit compared to clicking Declare Surprise War. They can easily prepare for the fact that the defender will be somewhat prepared.

What we're saying is that the "Denounce" step not only should indicate to the defender (and the world) that a war is coming, but should also tell the defender why (be it taking a city that is too close to you or converting a religion..etc). Not only now the defender knows roughly when a war may happen, as per current system, but also where or what steps to mitigate it completely.

This should alone make the suggestion more helpful to the defender than a simple one catch-all Denounce button. But on top of that, it also prevents the attacker from avoiding all the negative diplo hit of a Surprise War just because they clicked Denounce first, because the attacker is tied to what they declared as their reason for the war (casus belli).

So in later eras, a surprise war should give you a major warmonger penalty but you're free to gain as much as you like in this war. A formal war will give you no warmonger penalty, but ties you to specific war goals. Go overboard, and you will start receiving the negative diplo hit. I think this is a fair system and gives the same amount of help, if not more, to the AI.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What we're saying is that the "Denounce" step not only should indicate to the defender (and the world) that a war is coming, but should also tell the defender why (be it taking a city that is too close to you or converting a religion..etc). Not only now the defender knows roughly when a war may happen, as per current system, but also where or what steps to mitigate it completely.

In AI vs. Player denunciations AI already tells the reason.
In Player vs. AI denunciation that's not needed as AI is not a human and lacks understanding.
In Player vs. Player denunciations they could tell each other in chat.
In AI vs. AI you'll not know anyway. Variant: you could know the reason through spying - it will be the same kind of info you get then AI denounces you.

 

[tranx]

That doesn't really make sense - England dislikes you because you guys don't share a continent so you have the right to attack her?

Actually I was thinking about the other kinds of modifiers: border tensions, choice of civics/social policies, refusal of trade deals etc...

Maybe only when your negative modifiers add up to -5 or -10 would you get a proper reason for denouncement. Not ideal I know, just an idea.

Maybe a casus belli could also be provoked when troops of different nationalities are on adjacent hexes.

The player has a mind of their own. I can denounce a civ for any reason I choose. For example, Quin would likely denounce and inevitably attack me for wonder spam. Pedro isn't going to do that because he doesn't care if I build I build wonders - he will however denounce and attack me for spamming GP, which Quin wouldn't do. They can both obviously do this for multitudes of other reason, not merely restricted to agendas but also the flow of the game; Warmonger penalties, differing governments, demands/refusals of trade deals, territorial disputes, etc. That's why the modifiers exist.

I, not having a programmed personally, can Denounce and attack them for any reason I want.

Yes but other AIs need to see your war as legitimate enough not to call you a warmonger, whatever the real reason behind your war. Thus the idea of using what's already in game, ie the diplomatic modifiers. The AI just needs to look at the attacker's disposition toward the attackee to decide whether the war is justifiable.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Actually I was thinking about the other kinds of modifiers: border tensions, choice of civics/social policies, refusal of trade deals etc...

Maybe only when your negative modifiers add up to -5 or -10 would you get a proper reason for denouncement. Not ideal I know, just an idea.

Maybe a casus belli could also be provoked when troops of different nationalities are on adjacent hexes.

That's Paradox way of thinking, not Firaxis

Civilization should be a game first, with clear gameplay goals behind the systems. Civ6 justified war system is brilliant from gameplay point of view; systems with "proper reasons" are good for historical simulators like EU.

 

[Xen]

That's Paradox way of thinking, not Firaxis

Civilization should be a game first, with clear gameplay goals behind the systems. Civ6 justified war system is brilliant from gameplay point of view; systems with "proper reasons" are good for historical simulators like EU.

EU isnt even close to being a historical simulator- most of the modifiers exist to pose a speed bump to world conquest.

I would love to see spy be able to do a "fabricate claims" style mission on enemy cities and territory in order to have a casus belli, ala the EU series though.

That would be fantastic, and really help immerse me.

 

[stealth_nsk]

EU isnt even close to being a historical simulator- most of the modifiers exist to pose a speed bump to world conquest.

I would love to see spy be able to do a "fabricate claims" style mission on enemy cities and territory in order to have a casus belli, ala the EU series though.

That would be fantastic, and really help immerse me.

By historical simulation I mean just this - putting immersion well ahead of gameplay. The Civ6 denunciation mechanics has strong gameplay value - it's a strategic choice between huge warmonger penalties of surprise war and preparations from your enemy for justified war (plus ability to be attacked back with justified war, so you'll not abuse it with denouncing right and left). Any "fabricate claim" or any other reason outside straight diplomacy will just ruin the mechanic right away.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally ok with existence of EU, it has its fanbase. But you can't expect Civilization to target the same fanbase - Civilization audience is much bigger and those people expect game with strategic decisions.

 

[Xen]

By historical simulation I mean just this - putting immersion well ahead of gameplay. The Civ6 denunciation mechanics has strong gameplay value - it's a strategic choice between huge warmonger penalties of surprise war and preparations from your enemy for justified war (plus ability to be attacked back with justified war, so you'll not abuse it with denouncing right and left). Any "fabricate claim" or any other reason outside straight diplomacy will just ruin the mechanic right away.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally ok with existence of EU, it has its fanbase. But you can't expect Civilization to target the same fanbase - Civilization audience is much bigger and those people expect game with strategic decisions.

"Historical Simulation" implies that its going to come out to (more or less) a predetermined outcome. EU has been slanted that way for a long time, and still is in some ways, but the last few years have seen a lot of work- particularly in non European states- to help even the field with bonuses and uniqueness. (Though France and Austria never tend to get ripped apart as often as I would like them to )

That said, speaking from a lot fo experience in both worlds, the EU fanbase has a TON of overlap with the Civ fanbase. Everyone who I know who plays EU also plays (or has played in the past) Civ.

Most of that doesn't matter though. What does matter is creating fun mechanics. I think giving spies something to do, or an added layer of intrigue for how religion plays out with religious friction (perhaps according to policies you pick for your faith as time goes) or any number of other things can influence what you are able to do as a player, and add nuance (if you desire to have or use it) are great things.

 

[stealth_nsk]

"Historical Simulation" implies that its going to come out to (more or less) a predetermined outcome. EU has been slanted that way for a long time, and still is in some ways, but the last few years have seen a lot of work- particularly in non European states- to help even the field with bonuses and uniqueness. (Though France and Austria never tend to get ripped apart as often as I would like them to )

That's discussion about terms, I didn't mean this. You could read "immersion-focused game" instead of "Historical simulator" in my post.

 

[Nixalo]

I think it will be simple. Based on what Marbozir said, it's linked to policies.

So you'd have to slot in a policy to declare types of war.

I suspect things like this

Crusade- Can declare war on civ with different religion
Ideological war- Can declare war on civ with opposite government.
Liberation- Can declare war that has taken another capital or city state. Must liberate it.
Trade war- Can declare war on good economic civs
WORLD WAR- OH HERE WE GO!!

 

[apocalypse105]

I think it will be simple. Based on what Marbozir said, it's linked to policies.

So you'd have to slot in a policy to declare types of war.

I suspect things like this

Crusade- Can declare war on civ with different religion
Ideological war- Can declare war on civ with opposite government.
Liberation- Can declare war that has taken another capital or city state. Must liberate it.
Trade war- Can declare war on good economic civs
WORLD WAR- OH HERE WE GO!!

would love to see that you dont get a penalty for dowing if a Ai ignores youre request of spying they keep sending spies that can be a reason for war

 

[Fourmi1]

At least, we know that Formal War declaration and Cassus Belli are two separate things (since cassus belli comes with policies), isn't it ?

I suspect things like this

Crusade- Can declare war on civ with different religion
Ideological war- Can declare war on civ with opposite government.
Liberation- Can declare war that has taken another capital or city state. Must liberate it.
Trade war- Can declare war on good economic civs
WORLD WAR- OH HERE WE GO!!

It would be very interesting that way, I really like that, but what would be the advantages given by cassus belli over Formal War ?

oh and I would say:
World War - every allies you have declare war on everybody in the opposite alliance (and they HAVE to choose), plus no warmonger penalty if you "win" the war (or something like that)