Casus Belli System

[Babri]

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 ?

 

[joe80x86]

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 ?

Anything would be an improvement. It is not only difficult sometimes to determine your standing with other powers but they often times make no sense. They call you blood thirst then ask for a secret pact against another or for research.

 

[Vordeo]

The worst times are when someone declares on you, and you keep fighting, taking their cities and such because they won't talk peace, and get called bloodthirsty by other civs for your troubles.

I mean, come on.

 

[Camikaze]

It comes down to the dichotomy between 'fairness' and balance. It may seem fair that if you have a casus belli, you shouldn't be subject to diplomatic penalties, but if that were the case, then you could quite easily game the system (given the state of the AI) to circumvent diplomatic penalties, which are important aspect of balance.

 

[Babri]

It comes down to the dichotomy between 'fairness' and balance. It may seem fair that if you have a casus belli, you shouldn't be subject to diplomatic penalties, but if that were the case, then you could quite easily game the system (given the state of the AI) to circumvent diplomatic penalties, which are important aspect of balance.

But right now AI seems too stupid sometimes. It would be more logical & interesting if AI & human attack another nation or insults for a specific purpose instead of brainlessly attacking or insulting. And I don't think it would disturb the balance. It would just make you think carefully about making your allies & enemies

 

[mikiencolor]

I like this idea, especially casus belli for nations that ignore your requests not to spam your lands with their cities, or for nations that go around insulting you... not complaints, though, like saying "you're bloodthirsty" or "i just know you're planning to invade", just random pointless insults. This one time the Ottomans even declared war on an allied city state of mine and then contacted me next turn just to rub it in my face saying something like "Yep, we DID just invade your ally and we're planning on keeping all their juicy resources for ourselves just so you know. What are YOU gonna do about it?". 6 turns later Istambul was renamed Julius Maximus.

 

[Camikaze]

But right now AI seems too stupid sometimes. It would be more logical & interesting if AI & human attack another nation or insults for a specific purpose instead of brainlessly attacking or insulting. And I don't think it would disturb the balance. It would just make you think carefully about making your allies & enemies

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.

 

[Vordeo]

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.

I get what you're saying, but at the bare minimum they should at least remember who started the war you're fighting in, and not call you bloodthirsty if you didn't declare.

 

[Babri]

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.

Predictable ? So you prefer AI doing things totally odd. Surely attacking you when you're weak is fine but calling you blood thirsty just because you took a city in a defensive war is totally stupid. And to me a little warning about AI behaviour is good. I don't like Catherine praising my economy & military but after 2-3 turns she is calling me blood thirsty...

 

[Jaraxle]

I like it when they call me bloodthirsday and then next turn ask me to help them attack an opponent.

Or when I am helping them in a war then they call me bloodthirsty after its over. Your welcome ass.

 

[Camikaze]

I get what you're saying, but at the bare minimum they should at least remember who started the war you're fighting in, and not call you bloodthirsty if you didn't declare.

Perhaps you shouldn't suffer a penalty as much as if you declared, but there still needs to be a penalty, to limit you from turning what was initially a defensive war into an offensive one.

Predictable ? So you prefer AI doing things totally odd.

No, but if the AI are completely predictable, then that's not very good for the game. You should always be able to predict what they are going to do, but it shouldn't be easy. The AI should go to war with the object of winning the game only. All other aims are rather supplementary to their purpose in the game.

Surely attacking you when you're weak is fine but calling you blood thirsty just because you took a city in a defensive war is totally stupid.

I think that it's reasonably fair to be called bloodthirsty as soon as you take cities. I mean, if you aren't bloodthirsty, then surely you would just defend, and not go on the offensive at all.

And to me a little warning about AI behaviour is good. I don't like Catherine praising my economy & military but after 2-3 turns she is calling me blood thirsty...

The warning is in the expectation that there are going to be penalties for your actions in war.

 

[ancalimon]

Casus Belli is a great idea!

 

[Babri]

Perhaps you shouldn't suffer a penalty as much as if you declared, but there still needs to be a penalty, to limit you from turning what was initially a defensive war into an offensive one.
I think that it's reasonably fair to be called bloodthirsty as soon as you take cities. I mean, if you aren't bloodthirsty, then surely you would just defend, and not go on the offensive at all.

But in real world this is not the case. For example US is involved in different wars like in Afghanistan & Iraq etc but they are not called as bloodthirsty by Europeans.

No, but if the AI are completely predictable, then that's not very good for the game. You should always be able to predict what they are going to do, but it shouldn't be easy. The AI should go to war with the object of winning the game only. All other aims are rather supplementary to their purpose in the game.

I am not saying that they should be completely predictable. What I am saying is that they should act logically. For example in the current game I am a mighty power. Russia is an enemy of Arabia. I helped Russians against Arabs & even declared war to help them. Few turns later when Washington insults me & I rush towards his city. Now Russia calls me bloodthirsty. What the hell is that. Don't they need to keep me as their ally in Arab-Russian War ?

Casus Belli is a great idea!

Thanks for your appreciation !

 

[ancalimon]

But in real world this is not the case. For example US is involved in different wars like in Afghanistan & Iraq etc but they are not called as bloodthirsty by Europeans.

That's probably because their governments have somehow made it accepted among common people that Islam is evil. The truth is that every ruler is evil.

A Muslim population can always be attacked because being Muslim is "Casus Belli enough".

This gives an idea. We should be able to indoctrinate other countries to believe in something that we want. That's as real life as it gets. It's also fun.

 

[Babri]

That's probably because their governments have somehow made it accepted among common people that Islam is evil. The truth is that every ruler is evil.

A Muslim population can always be attacked because being Muslim is "Casus Belli enough".

True. 'The War on Terror' these days is actually 'War for Terror'.
Anyways my real point is that nations declare wars with a casus belli. Whether the casus belli is self created by using propaganda & media is something else but it enables the nation to wage war without suffering too much in international relations. In ciV terminology if you fight a war with a casus belli most of the nations will not call you bloodthirsty. You'll suffer penalty only with that nation, their allies & a nearby neighbour with whom you're not at very good relations. Also I would like to see that small nations close to a super power should think carefully when insulting them. I was constantly insulted by Elizabeth who only had one spearman while I had swordmen + catapults.

 

[Vordeo]

Perhaps you shouldn't suffer a penalty as much as if you declared, but there still needs to be a penalty, to limit you from turning what was initially a defensive war into an offensive one.

In some cases I'd agree, but when your opponent refuses to surrender, leaving you no choice but to keep fighting, it sucks. Also, it seems a bit unfair that the other bloke can attack you all he wants, but if you take even a bit of his territory you become bloodthirsty.

That said, I think razing cities might've been what caused the bloodthirsty comments.

 

[Camikaze]

In some cases I'd agree, but when your opponent refuses to surrender, leaving you no choice but to keep fighting, it sucks.

But that's the price you have to pay for going on the offensive. I mean, you could just shut up shop and stay at home, not attacking at all, or you could start attacking. Attacking is the easier option to take, but there needs to be some sort of incentive to choose the other option.

Also, it seems a bit unfair that the other bloke can attack you all he wants, but if you take even a bit of his territory you become bloodthirsty.

Presumably this is taken into account in the diplomacy between AIs.

 

[mihaifx]

Great idea with Cassus Beli. I remember in Europa Universalis you had a big penalty if you declared war without it, the same could go for Civ (maybe a happiness penalty, to replace war weariness).

Of course making the AI take it into account would be tricky, but not too hard I believe (if indeed possible).

 

[falconne]

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 AI handles it just fine in Paradox games. Manufacturing casus belli is a big part of the games' mechanics. It's not just the diplomatic penalties you suffer for going against it, but also unhappiness from your population.

It makes for much more logical warfare and actually creates an environment for alliances to form. It's much more realistic too; manufacturing casus belli has been with humans in every culture... people needed a bit more from their leaders than "I want more land so you folks go and die fighting for it".

OTOH, it's one of those features that only realistic games like Paradox ones can pull off. I don't see it appearing in a core Civ game. Perhaps in a sophisticated mod.

 

[Camikaze]

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.