Casus Belli System

[falconne]

The way Civ AI was in Civ 4, and the way I hear it being complained about in Civ 5, it's just not up to the task. Logical warfare would be nice, and is more realistic, but impractical without making it too predictable and easy to game. Realism should not come at the cost of gameplay.

Civ AIs can't handle a fraction of the stuff Paradox AIs can, but the AIs can be improved once the code is here.

As for predictability, if you play Europa Universalis you'll realise it's far from predictable. What it produces is logical. Not only does the stuff that happens in the game make sense, which is important in an empire building game (even though Civ 5 is very much an abstract strategy game now), it also makes the AI more sensible. This forces it to concentrate on more immediate threats (neighbours with casus belli on you are more likely to attack, so the AI knows who to defend against) instead of wondering off to plant settlements in the middle of tundra.

As has been discussed in other threads quite a bit already, there are two groups of Civ players now. Some who like the empire sim style games that make you feel like you're creating an alternate and believable history, and another group who prefer pure quantifiable strategy and don't mind abstraction. Casus belli systems in Paradox style definitely falls in to the realistic sim group, which is why I don't think anything like that will be a part of core Civ 5.

On an unrelated note, regarding your comment about "predictability" though, I don't think being unpredictable is helping the Civ AI. Paradox AIs are good because they are goal based - the higher level decides what goals need to be achieved and lower levels implement tasks to get there. You may call it "predictable", but what it does is give the AI a sense of purpose and it can achieve something. The current Civ AI changes its mind every few turns, as the equations tilt in different ways. That's why so many people have complained about the AI seeming "random" and having no sense of direction. It tries to pull in every direction at once and goes nowhere. Even if it does make them more predictable to an experienced player, making the AIs goal based actually makes them a lot better at empire building.

 

[Babri]

On an unrelated note, regarding your comment about "predictability" though, I don't think being unpredictable is helping the Civ AI. Paradox AIs are good because they are goal based - the higher level decides what goals need to be achieved and lower levels implement tasks to get there. You may call it "predictable", but what it does is give the AI a sense of purpose and it can achieve something. The current Civ AI changes its mind every few turns, as the equations tilt in different ways. That's why so many people have complained about the AI seeming "random" and having no sense of direction. It tries to pull in every direction at once and goes nowhere. Even if it does make them more predictable to an experienced player, making the AIs goal based actually makes them a lot better at empire building.

Basically AI should be planning of what to do in the next few turns. Also it should think what decisions are more beneficial. Declaring war & insulting other players without thinking of the consequences is totally stupid. The idea of Casus Belli doesn't make the game predictable but it actually makes a proper track which would prevent AI & player to make stupid decisions to some extent. Right now for example there is no penalty for backstabbing your ally which is unrealistic & irritating.
And it would be interesting that your advisor tells you what military units you can create to balance your army composition, which civilization to attack to get more resources or to damage your opponent when he is busy in something else etc. That won't be tough to program I guess.

 

[eric_]

They call you blood thirst then ask for a secret pact against another or for research.

Seems like a good way to try to give you incentive not to attack them, too, no?

 

[B-29 Bomber]

I get what you're saying, and agree that it would be more interesting, but I don't think the AI would be able to usefully harness the system in a way that would make them better opponents. In fact, they would probably become more predictable, and there would be huge opportunity to manufacture certain events simply to trick the AI into war, or to be able to avoid certain diplomatic penalties yourself. This idea simply isn't possible to be implemented, IMO, unless the AI is drastically improved from the state it is supposedly in.

The problem is we humans are very predictable. That is why I can predict the future of the US by looking at the histories of Imperial Rome(compare Rome's Barbarian Invasions to the hordes of illegal aliens coming across the boarder) , Weimar Republic(compare their debt to the US in the 1920s to America's debt to China now), and others.

 

[SaiH]

A casus belli system would be great in my opinion. Especially in combination with an advanced UN-system.
I don't think, things would become mor predictable because one/the AI could ignore a casus belli and not go to war which could be appreciated by other civs whereas going to war without casus belli would make it understandable that other leaders call you bloodthirsty.

 

[nokmirt]

I've noticed that there are some flaws in the diplomacy system. For example in my last game English & Persians were constantly insulting me & I was at good terms with Russia & Babylon. After sometime I conquered the only city of English & took 2 cities of Persians leaving them with 1 city. Now Catherine started calling me bloodthirsty. That was revenge actually. If Casus Belli System is introduced, such problems can be solved. It will also help in explaining you why nation X declared war on you etc. You could get a casus belli against someone who insults you, who is too weak, grabbing land near your empire etc. So what do you people think about it ?

I have been insulted by everyone in my game. So I took my label and went with it. In the end they ganged up on me, and I had no chance. I would love for that change to be implemented into the game. They should give you a cassus belli rating, which builds up through insults and other factors. When this gets high enough, or to a certain point you can declare war against another civ, without extreme penalty. All civs should have this rating, and you can look at a diplomacy screen to see how much cassus belli you have built up against them. Keep in mind they will have the same rating towards you and other AI civ's, or humans in multi-player.

This is why events should be put back in, for intrigue. For instance, you are Greeks, and you send out a party of men to kill a bunch of Persians, who are encroaching on your territory and insulting you(keep in mind it could be that the Persians are not the aggressor and you are). Then you dress these dead Persians in Greek armor, and they are found the next day by one of your patrols in your territory, and the heads and armor are brought before your king. And you should get three options, like events in civ 4 to choose from. Each could ask for a certain reward, for instance

1.) Spend no gold and if successful your cassus belli goes up say 25 points.

You select this option, and then other factors are determined(or simply by random chance, kind of like rolling a die, sometimes you get double sixes, sometimes snakeyes), and a pop up tells you if you successful.

Let's say for instance in this case your plot does not work. The Persians cassus belli will go up 25 pointstowards you.

2.) Spend 250 gold, and your cassus belli goes up 40 points.

3.) spend 1,000 gold and all eyes look on Persia with disdain and get a substantial increase in cassus belli towards the Persian outlaws, and cassus belli is in your favor for a declaration of war.

So you want to put more cash on the table. This does not mean you'll win, but there is a chance. Your betting more hoping for a larger gain. It is diplomatic gambling at it's best. If you lose here. The Persians will end up having the cassus belli against you, and may fight. They also with have the sympathy of other civs, and you would be the international outlaw. So when or when not to use intrigue, and how far to take it comes into play. There could be buildings that can be built, or you could invest money to raise your intrigue level, which helps your civ's ability to undertake intrigue style missions with a better chance of completeing said mission.

Keep in mind some intrigue mission could be as simple as trying to marry your princess off to another civ in order to gain a defensive pact or some kind of diplomatic friendship, or even a research agreement. The situations are limitless. You could for instance get so nice with another civ, you could gain the ability to produce their UU or UB. Or every once in awhile they gift you one of their UU's.

I love these crazy ideas I come up with, lol!


Diplomacy in general is very difficult in Civ 5. Rarely even on Prince level do I get the upper hand. In civ 4 they would trade you GPT, alot easier if you were selling something. I would rather have that than a bunch of gold at once. I usually have problems selling my excess luxuries. Usually no other civ wants to buy them. I have to end up selling extra horses or iron, most times to make ends meet.

My next game, which I am going to play now, will be at warlord level so I can concentrate on learning how this new game works. I have alot to learn yet. I spend way too much time modding and not playing.

 

[zimmah]

who is too weak

why would you get a casus belli against a weak player who is just playing peacefully?

 

[Namaspamus]

Where I miss casus belli, or ultimatum the most is when someone attacks a city-state I'm protecting. It could be like the "demand" option but if they refuse war is auto-declared. "you'll pay for this in time" isn't good because they're going to pay right now. It's implicit but not clear enough.

About the warmongering penalties it seems normal that conquering many cities from the aggressor is considered as an aggression. Other leaders could just warn us when they think we're going too far. They do it about purchasing tiles or founding cities next to them, why not about conquest?
We could answer: "all right, we'll negociate peace without taking other cities during this war" or: "this is what happens when a fool attacks us". Same for the razing of cities. They could do this with or without ultimatum/casus belli (probably without first).

Hiding the modifiers is fine imo, but then the talking must be very clear.

 

[CGG1066]

I generally side with the people's game-play/balance concerns. But something needs to be done - the whole diplomacy needs to be retooled somehow. I don't think the down-graded the AI from Civ4, just that the addition of city states really created way too many conflicting interests which are always resolved against you.

Take this gem from my first game. I, Bismark, had a defensive pact with Washington. Gandhi declares war on my American allies (one thing I love about Civ, it's not a mere repetition of history), so I automatically declare war on India. Next turn, Washington cancels the defensive pact, pact of cooperation, and calls me bloodthirsty (and taunts me thereafter) - all for saving HIS ass!

Like I said . . . something needs to be done. . .

 

[Babri]

why would you get a casus belli against a weak player who is just playing peacefully?

Big conquerors did attacked weak opponents without a lot of diplomatic pressure until in modern age. Still the strong ones attack the weaker nations but they use propoganda through media to protect themselves from strong opposition. So this could be represented as a casus belli (maybe you would have to use a spy to create something like 9/11).

 

[Babri]

The problem is we humans are very predictable. That is why I can predict the future of the US by looking at the histories of Imperial Rome(compare Rome's Barbarian Invasions to the hordes of illegal aliens coming across the boarder) , Weimar Republic(compare their debt to the US in the 1920s to America's debt to China now), and others.