Casus Belli?

[Kurgan]

I think that it would be a good idea to add the concept of Cassus Belli to Civ III. It could be used as a balancing tool, for example, if a civ crosses your territoty several times, and you ask them to retreat their troops and they do not do that, or if they retreat they put units in your territory the next turn or in two or three turns, after three times, or three warnings in different turns, it should be considered that you have a casus belli, and if you declare war to that civ in lets say 20 turns, no other civ will take that on account as warmongering, but as a just retaliation. Also it could be that if you have an ally that allies could refuse to honor a mutual protection pact without suffering any penalty if the war was declared having a casus belli.

What do you think?
And, is this the right thread?

 

[Jimcat]

I think that Civ3 already has the concept of casus belli built in. When you tell another civilization to "remove your troops or declare WAR!", you have the casus belli against them. Likewise if they build a city in your territory (though I have never seen this happen).

Sometimes, though, if you want a war, you just have to declare it. You don't get a diplomatic penalty for declaring war, just for breaking treaties. If I'm looking to start a war, I make sure to wrap up all my trade deals and other relations with the enemy before I start taking aggressive action.

Besides, there are lots of things you can do to provoke another civ into declaring war on you. Several previous threads have addressed this.

 

[Grey Fox]

Well it works when the Computer does it towards us, why shouldn't it work the other way around?

I don't another civs area, or try to cross it without a RoP, I know they will get annoyed, (and I'm not that obsessed with settling every corner of the earth as they are) but they don't seem to care about what we think about them trespassing, or building cities where we want them.

In MP there will be no settling near or behind someones terr, we know thats an act of war.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Actually, what Kurgan seems to be driving at it this: there`s a foreign settler on my territory. I ask him to leave, he doesn`t. but declares war. But he does not attack me. Now if I kill the Settler, I`m the warmonger - and that`s dead wrong!!!!! but that`s the way it works in CivIII.

You should be allowed to fire the first shot without being blamed if you have righetous cause!

Smae thing for MPP - if someone surprise attacks you and takes a city, you may only counterattack against those troop that are in your territory. If you try to retake your city (it`s your, after all), his MPP kicks in....

Just imagine Turkey (NATO-member) invading Syria, taking some land. Now Syria tries to kick them out - and the whole NATO has to join Turkey???????

 

[Jimcat]

Hm. If you've got an unprotected foreign settler on your territory AND the enemy has already declared war, just move some troops across his border and wait for the enemy to attack. Then you can pick off the settler with a faster unit.

Still, I agree, you shouldn't incur any "first shot" penalties in a situation like that.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Sure, Jimcat, that`s the smart way around it! But that`s another thing where I use the not-so-smart programming to my advantage instead of a smart programming that works intelligently in the first place