Casus belli/Justified wars

[mudblood]

If you read about history, e.g. the anglo-dutch-wars, you see that in real history there often was no difference between peace and war.

Hostile activities like capturing enemy merchant fleets, annexing colonial property (like New Amsterdam-New York 1664), battles on sea could all happen without the declaration of war.

Declaring a war is a serious act since it might become difficult and expensive to wage a full war and to end the war. Therefore smaller hostile actions were often tolerated. They capture 10 outposts from us, we capture them back, they capture a Ship-of-the-Line, we steal their Flagg-Ship ... Precondition is that hostile actions are backed by a strong military which assures that a full war will be too expensive for the other side.

Therefore I propose to allow hostile actions in Civ6 without the silly declaration of war. Hostile actions may include :
- stealing workers,
- stealing settlers,
- destroying military units
- destroy unwanted missionaries (and other unwanted civilian units)
- pirating trade routes
- capturing cities

The attacked side may choose to either tolerate it (and in future avoid the player or try to enforce their interests in the region by military power.) Or they may prepare for a costly military campaign and declare war, but there is always the chance that they might loose much more in the conflict.

An additional benefit for the player would be that the sometimes insane negotations with AI about peace would occure less often.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Dutch_War

This has swerved well off the topic, which is whether there is enough history to justify just war and casus belli as a game mechanic.

But just to make a couple points: That article on the Second Anglo-Dutch War is pretty limited. It was actually considered an illegitimate war by many in England--why was England attacking a fellow Protestant nation when the greater risk was Catholics? Many British historians trace the origins of the Popish Plot to that war, and place the war at the beginning of a series of events that so destabilized the English monarchy that James II lost his crown a few years later in the Glorious Revolution--to William of Orange, no less. It perfectly illustrates why the game mechanic is justified.

Same with the Civil War. Secession was always about slavery for the South, "the preservation of the Southern Way of Life." You're right that Lincoln avoided arguing the war was about slavery, and stated after the Emancipation Proclamation that it was about winning the war, not about freeing the slaves. But that wasn't the point--the EP legitimated the war in international eyes. Southern hopes depended upon recognition from Britain, but once Lincoln issued the EP, the war was seen in the UK as about emancipating the slaves and all hope for the South of recognition was lost. Once again, the mechanic is justified.

Not going to follow up on this because any further discussion will be way off topic.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Regarding the Civil War example If one of the cities you have rebels (assuming such a mechanic is in) then I would imagine that could be retaken as part of a just war.

Possibly depending on Ideology....if an Order city rebels and joins an Autocracy civ...
Order civs view retaking the city as Totally justified, Autocracy ones as Totally unjustified, and Freedom civs view it as partially justified.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

To win the war, in 1863 the north issued the Emancipation Proclamation (free all slaves) to destroy the southern economy. Slavery was not the Casus Belli.

That doesn't seem right because the confederate states already existed and the civil war was in progress when the emancipation proclamation was issued. So a law freeing the slaves of states that no longer recognized your authority would have no effect.
My understanding was that European nations were considering recognizing the confederacy as a nation and resume trading with them. The emancipation proclamation functioned to identify the war as a moral issue rather than a political issue. Recognizing the confederacy meant legitimizing their stance on slavery and most governments of Europe were by then against slavery. So they could not support the slave states.
Which did cripple their economy so yeah, issued to destroy economy.

Edit: didn't read mudblood's post. Pontificated fo 'nuttin.

 

[historix69]

I did not want to derail the thread too far away from its original topic ...
Summarizing episodes from history in a few sentences as examples is difficult when there are already full books or even librarys on the same theme.

So far Slavery is not really present in the Civ series (probably for reasons of political correctness) and therefore might not be a Casus Belli. Even Civ3 with ethnical population and adding captured foreign workers to your cities or Colonization with converted natives was only lightly touching the topic.

Interesting questions for a Just War / Casus Belli system are :
- Will it be active from start or will it start in a later era or will it require something like the U.N. to establish first?
- How many turns (on standard speed) will last a Casus Belli before it expires?
- Will the Casus Belli be accepted globally by all civs or only a few?
- Religion will be present in Civ6. Maybe Civ6 will also feature the 20th century ideologies. Will Religion and Ideology have a larger impact than Just War-Casus Belli in the players religious/ideological group?
- Will alliances justify entering a war for the player when the ally is not fighting a just war?
- Will national interests justify a war? (e.g. 1962 Cuban missile crisis)
- Will a justified war allow you to fight enemy troops in neutral players territory or let you (temporarily) take control of small neutral states (e.g. Persia in WW1, WW2)?

 

[Felis Renidens]

How I think it should work is:
- The distinction will always exist but with warmonger penalties becoming more serious as you progress. So you can go through it in ancient times, but you'll have no reason to bother and give your opponent an advantage when the penalty is negligent, the only exception is if the penalty will push another player to join the war against you forcing you to fight on two fronts (but then, they might to it anyway just because they can)
- I think something like 10 turns since a warning (denounce) is given is a good base. Might also be incorporated with the wait 10 turns when an AI offers you to attack.
- I think once a warning is issued every civ will consider who they like (or fear, or need or whatever) more and will either support or reject your claim. It's a just war to those that support your claim. Also some AIs will be more understanding to some claims. Those that like city states would support wars done to protect a city state. Those that hate spies will support a war on the basis of espionage done against you. It works well with AI agenda.
- I suppose religion and ideology should also factor into whether a civ accepts or rejects your claim for just war.
- Your ally should always see your war as just. Also I think it should depend on the alliance - there should be secret alliances to lunch a surprise war within 10 turns, and public alliances which are basically a joint denunciation. You may also try denouncing by yourself - How well it will work? Associating with an aggressor might get you some negative reaction, like in CiV making a declaration of friendship with someone they denounced. They not liking you might lead to them rejecting your claims. politics. politics...
- define interests in game terms? You may try "refusal to pay tribute" as pretext, it might be considered a weak one but depending on era or politics some might accept it, as long as a warning was given. If the other civs don't want to go to war they might even accept you bullying someone out of a resource rich city.
- Perhaps there should be more flexibility about entering territory that open borders or war. Perhaps like the Civ2 system, you can get troops to someone else's territory. It will make them alarmed and they will ask you to move them out. You can promise to move them out, say they are just passing or give a rude reply. In about 3 turns the AI will give you an ultimatum and your troops will either be teleported to the nearest border or it's war (and counts as a surprise attack on your side). If you moved several units into his border he won't have to wait 3 turns. If there are troops passing through your territory you'll get an option to ask them to leave, or issue an ultimatum. It will also solve the scout stuck behind UI lines problem. I'll have a few turns to get him to my territory. If there is also skirmish mechanic he might get attacked without provoking war. Same with unprotected settlers near his borders. If such mechanic will be implemented provoking a skirmish attack will be a good way to get casus belli.

 

[stealth_nsk]

- As far as we know the justified war mechanic is available from the start, as it was in the demo. Most likely with alliances, defensive alliances and city-state protection promise later in the game, the amount of casus belli options increases.
- I believe the casus belli for war with ally lasts until either war or alliance ends. The casus belli from denunciation could be the same 30 turns as agreements in Civ5 as it needs to include about 10 turns where denouncing civ can't attack with justified war.
- It will be accepted globally, but other civs may have additional modifiers depending on agenda, diplomatic relations, etc.
- I think religion/ideology could have impact on diplomacy, but not justified wars directly. Giving too many reasons for justified war will deteriorate the system and having other religion/ideology is too common.
- I'd do it as yes - joining war with ally should be justified war in any case. Unless it's just defensive alliance, of course.
- No, the reasons should be visible in diplomacy for potential targets or it will not work. You could see Cuban crisis as denunciation which didn't result in war.
- I believe it will not have anything to do with this directly. But having justified war means better diplomatic relations and thus easier to make open borders agreement.

Another interesting questions is whether unjustified war affects relations with city-states. It would be cool.

 

[historix69]

Will it be possible to declare Spheres of Interest or something like the Monroe Doctrine?

Violating another Great Power's Sphere of Interest may lead to a war with the Great Power defending its National Interests. May National Interests justify war?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Will it be possible to declare Spheres of Interest?

Violating another Great Power's Sphere of Interest may lead to a war with the Great Power defending its National Interests.

Well you may be able to do that to certain City States/Civs through alliances/pledges.

 

[Felis Renidens]

I think the closest you will get to that in a game is declaring a city-state under your protection or having defensive alliance. You want land - settle it. Also maintaining trade and roads. Otherwise I don't see it working in a game.

 

[Seek]

Some great ideas here. What I really hope is that the system is meaningful enough to make it usable in MP. For example, for each civ who "votes" (denounces?) a civ who declares an unjustified war the aggressor gets an additional 10% war weariness. Having a diplomacy system which has actual in-game meaning would be a first, and a welcome change.

Will it be possible to declare Spheres of Interest or something like the Monroe Doctrine?

Violating another Great Power's Sphere of Interest may lead to a war with the Great Power defending its National Interests. May National Interests justify war?

I was thinking maybe the pin function (or something similar) could be used to claim a territory or city, protect a city-state, or declare a DMZ with other nearby civs able to challenge the claim or leave it be.

Some mechanics from BE (I know, I know..) could work well here: diplo capital for placing claims or outposts to give the other civ an opportunity to militarily deny the claim, perhaps.

(OT, but I hope having a TR with a CS will be mandatory in Civ 6 as well.)

 

[criZp]

May National Interests justify war?

No more than personal interest justify crime.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I am very intrigued by the idea of justified wars being in civ6. I think it was Marbozir's preview that mentioned that players will need to denounce first in order to get a "justified war". That would certain make denouncing more useful.

I think a good way to do casus belli would be for certain actions to automatically give a civ a casus belli for X turns. During those turns, the victim would be allowed to DoW without any warmonger penalty. For example, if A steals a builder from B, then B would get a casus belli against A for say 10 turns, during which time, B could DoW against A with no warmonger penalty. If a civ does a declaration of war without a casus belli, then it would suffer a warmonger penalty.

I also think that if a civ attacks without a formal declaration of war that the victim should get a sympathy bonus, like an anti-warmonger bonus. I always thought it was weird in civ5 how the AI could surprise attack you but if you defended yourself and took an AI city that everyone would denounce you as a warmonger. That needs to go away in civ6.

Ultimately, I am hoping that civ6 does something really cool with the idea of justified wars. I definitely like that diplomacy will evolve during the game. Certainly, in the early game, players should be able to DoW more liberally whereas in the late game, it should be seriously frowned upon.

 

[boghog]

I'm not sure a casus belli system is that realistic. IRL you would always find a way to portray an act of aggression as an act of self defense if the war was in your interest. You could just invent some evidence for your intended victim possessing WMDs or claim that the others attacked first and you are good to go.
An example from the game. The Zulus attack Brasil. If Brasil is my main rival for a cultural victory, I will see the aggression as justified. If you are Brasil's neighbor and know that you will probably be next, you will see it differently.
People say that Civ V's warmonger penalty is broken because civs will denounce you for taking a neighbor's city even if he was the aggressor. I think that is just fine. The other party may have declared the war, but who's to say you didn't cleverly provoke it? The only indisputable fact is that you just came out of a conflict with more power and therefore more dangerous than before.
Other civs' hatred of me should only depend on how close I am to winning. And if I'm ahead they should jolly well band together and knock me down a peg or two.

 

[historix69]

If there is a Casus Belli system, it should be transparent allowing players to see active Casus Belli which might lead to a war in the near future, but it should also warn the player if his actions produce a Casus Belli for another side.

I recently started a new game of Civ5 BNW on a giant world map as Egypt, settled 4 cities in Northeast Africa and with placing the 4th city I got two Declarations of War by Rome (1 city) and Assyria (2 cities) because I am "building cities too fast". (Mouseover on their cities told me that I will get a Big Warmonger Score when taking their cities.) It was a fake war and after 10 turns they agreed to a peace treaty and gave me some GpT ...

Is "building too many cities too fast" a legal Casus Belli or just a National Interest?
Is "You are trying to win the game" a Casus Belli?
Is taking cities in a defensive war a Casus Belli other civs can use against the player?
Should players be warned by an adviser when placing a city that this might cause a war with certain AI civs?

On the other side not founding cities and having a small military force usually is an invitation for AI to invade and conquer your cities. And if the human player is eliminated, nobody cares if AI had a Casus Belli.
(It would be interesting if an "eliminated" player could establish an exile government in an allied country and later get back his liberated cities like France in 1940/45. Human player can liberate other civs but who will liberate the human player?)

 

[Felis Renidens]

And how will this transparency work with *secret* AI agendas?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I dont think someones agenda generates a cassus belli/justification.
If you are in their way (they must control all Spice sources) they will let you know when they are ready to declare on you. (Give us city xyz or war)

 

[Felis Renidens]

I don't think AI needs casus belli. I don't think AI-AI and Player-AI diplomacy works the same. I hope they make the AI-AI reasonable or at least predictable (they'll attack a weak AI, ally against a common threat, act according to their agenda etc.). I don't think they need to count warmonger points for AI.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I don't think AI needs casus belli. I don't think AI-AI and Player-AI diplomacy works the same. I hope they make the AI-AI reasonable or at least predictable (they'll attack a weak AI, ally against a common threat, act according to their agenda etc.). I don't think they need to count warmonger points for AI.

The AI always counts warmonger points, that's how it knows who is a common threat. (just like they count troop strength to know who is weak)

The AI, or the Player don't NEED cassus belli to declare war (AFAIK) they both need a cassus belli to declare a Justified war... that might still give them warmonger points if they grow too powerful. (like if the US made France, Italy, Germany+Japan US States after WWII...England, China, Russia, and the 3rd world would all be justifiably worried)

 

[historix69]

(like if the US made France, Italy, Germany+Japan US States after WWII...England, China, Russia, and the 3rd world would all be justifiably worried)

Simplified : What they did after WW2 was a Regime Change in Germany, Japan to switch those countries from the totalitarian fascist side to the democratic (free market) side. (Italy revolted and switched sides in time. Eastern Europe was switched to the red ideology for 40-50 years.)

A Regime Change would be an interesting option.
A war to change a country's ideology via Regime Change to the player's ideology would probably be accepted as a legal war by other players sharing the player's ideology.

Some people claim that after WW2 Germany and Japan became something like secret US vassal states ....

 

[Depravo]

Fabricated reasons are too gamey. It's like you press a button and whether you have successfully fabricated casus belli or not. No actions from the other side of the conflict. It's like a surprise war, just without penalties. I don't think anything like this shoul be in game.

Justified war mechanic should fuel diplomacy, not screw it.

For gameplay reasons I have to agree. CBs in EU now are so easy to get they are barely worth the complexity they add.