Causus Belli

[Sal]

I have mentioned this in another thread, and have seen it mentioned before for Civ 5, but want to give it it's own thread here to talk about how it could work in Civ BE.

At the moment if someone denounces me or declares war, I don't know why and vice versa. I might declare war on Hutama, who is about to destroy Fielding, but then Fielding denounces me for my aggression. This could clearly be improved a bit. Here is my suggestion.

When a civ carries out specific acts they are noted as a possible cause for war against that civ and presented as options when you DoW or denounce. So when I DoW Hutama I am asked why and given, for example, these actions from the last 50 turns to justify it:

1) He is killing all the Aliens
2) He is warmongering against x,y or z or a combination of them
3) He is attacking stations
4) He broke a promise not to forward settle
5) He is stealing science, energy, whatever
6) No reason, I just want his land/stuff and don't like him

The warmonger penalty would be different with each civ depending on their stance on these issues. For 1) a harmony civ might give me a diplo bonus whilst other affinities don't think it is a good reason. For 2) the civs who I am helping should be grateful, whereas others will respond negatively, unless they too think Hutama is warmongering. 3) might reduce the warmonger penalty but not eliminate it, as with 4) and 5). 6) would obviously give the maximum warmonger hit with everyone.

Hopefully this would have the effect of enriching diplomacy and making more sense of denunciations and DoWs, which can seem arbitrary at the moment. If anyone is in programming and thinks this is unworkable let me know, but I reckon, mathematically, it should be a case of adding multipliers to each civ's warmonger penalty on an IF this, THEN that logical basis.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

This system already exists, in that your warmonger penalty with each AI is modified by their attitudes toward you and your opponent.

 

[Sal]

This system already exists, in that your warmonger penalty with each AI is modified by their attitudes toward you and your opponent.

If it exists it is poorly implemented and poorly communicated. As I mentioned above I have been denounced for warmongering by the losing party of a war for dowing their opponent ( first Dow on my part). In historical terms that is like the UK denouncing USA for entering the first world war on their side.

It is also certainly not the case that you can specify *why* you are declaring war. If other civs know you declared war because of spying, they should be less keen to spy on you.

 

[m15a]

I agree with the main idea, but I think your suggestion might not work right since the player can, and will, lie. And thus there'll be more incentive to get the opponents to do something "wrong" or wait until they do. I think it might help if all these things were factored in (with more weight for the ones that are) and if there was a mouse over that comes up over the declare war button so you know how bad the reaction will be.

 

[Lanth]

I think the idea is you can only choose one of those reasons if it's a *valid* reason that your CIV is aware of. You can't say he's been killing aliens, unless you've actually witnessed it. It can't say he's killing stations, unless you've witnessed it. You can't say he's been spying on you, unless you've actually caught his spies, etc.

Of course (almost) no player is going to choose option 6 if they could choose one of the alternatives instead.

 

[Sal]

I think the idea is you can only choose one of those reasons if it's a *valid* reason that your CIV is aware of. You can't say he's been killing aliens, unless you've actually witnessed it. It can't say he's killing stations, unless you've witnessed it. You can't say he's been spying on you, unless you've actually caught his spies, etc.

Of course (almost) no player is going to choose option 6 if they could choose one of the alternatives instead.

Yes, the idea is you can only choose a reason that has actually happened in, say, the last 50 turns. Of course no player will choose the option with the worst diplo hit, but even if you have an ulterior motive but are blaming it on their aggression to aliens or whatever, that is not dissimilar to real diplomacy. The term itself comes from the Roman obsession with always having a justification for their expansions into new territories. In order to maintain good relations with states they were not at war with, they waited until they could justify their invasions based on some offence or other.

You could argue that the reasons given for the gulf wars were not the real ones, but nevertheless they enabled bringing allies on board.

In gameplay terms the idea is that we get a bit more meaningful interaction with our neighbours, and the reasons for what is happening and why decisions are being made come across as less random.