Civ V - One World Speculation Thread!

[Sonereal]

A casus belli system would be so sweet

A casus belli system would be the absolute worst mechanic possible in a Civilization game. There is no good reason to implement one and on the time scale we're talking about, it makes no sense. It makes negative sense actually. If sense had a numerical value, this would be a negative.

Though, I heard there is a studio called Paradox that are known for publishing games with a casus belli system. You should go look at that.

As for the idea of it having a taste; the idea would be sour. A bitter-sort of sour.

 

[Pouakai]

How is it the worst possible system for Civ? I'd like to be able to declare war to liberate my allied city state without having everyone hate me, thank you very much

 

[Arachnofiend]

It would have to be very limited and your excuses for war would be analyzed by each civ individually. For example, a civ that is allied with the guy that took out your precious city-state ally wouldn't give a rat's ass about your desire to bring it back and would slap you with a warmonger penalty. Someone who was friends with that city-state before it's annexation would feel differently and side with you.

Breaking a promise/refusing a demand should only factor in as much as it threatens other civs. If an enemy sends in missionaries even after you ask them not to then the only ones who would care would be those who follow your religion (holy war ahoy!).

I guess what I'm saying is that cassus belli would only work if the AI continues to put their own interests at heart first.

 

[Pouakai]

So then it would need to come in with a more advanced diplomacy system. It would also need to have limits (eg. If I'm going to war in order to liberate my CS ally and then I conquer their whole empire, I need to be questioned about the motivation)

 

[poom3619]

A casus belli system would be the absolute worst mechanic possible in a Civilization game. There is no good reason to implement one...

1. AI sometimes declare war on you with "no good reason"
1.1. AI sometimes declare war on you despite you actually fought for "good reason"
1.1.1. AI sometime declare war on you because you conquer civ that use to conquer them.
1.1.2 AI sometime declare war on you because you conquer civ that declare war on you.
1.1.3 AI sometime declare war on you because you conquer civ that they asked you to.
1.2 AI sometime declare war because "they would lost anyway but want to cripple you"
... and the list probably goes on.

You should validate your argument. Because criticize something just because it is bad (in your opinion) is not quite reasonable for anyone else.

Actually, I think I prefer the term "War goal" in vanilla VickyII. Because it exactly what I like to see in CiV at first.

 

[Matthew.]

Yeah if a CB system was implemented with the current Civ5 diplomacy, it would need to be extremely simple. Although I think it would be easier to just modify the current system a bit. For example, declaration of war could be a minor penalty and not lead to war-monger label. Capturing cities would either A. have no negative effect if liberated or B. diplo hit if the city is taken under your control.

Seems like that would clear up a lot of the issues people have with diplo and war, and it makes sense as well. Scuffles happen all the time, but nations generally don't start paying significant attention until loss/gain of land or changing of rulers.

 

[Pouakai]

Yeah if a CB system was implemented with the current Civ5 diplomacy, it would need to be extremely simple. Although I think it would be easier to just modify the current system a bit. For example, declaration of war could be a minor penalty and not lead to war-monger label. Capturing cities would either A. have no negative effect if liberated or B. diplo hit if the city is taken under your control.

Seems like that would clear up a lot of the issues people have with diplo and war, and it makes sense as well. Scuffles happen all the time, but nations generally don't start paying significant attention until loss/gain of land or changing of rulers.

I like this - instead of a flat warmonger penalty, have a much smaller penalty for every city conquered, the level of which depends on if the 3rd civ was an ally or an enemy of the second

(eg. A captures city off B
Liberates it back to C - standard ± 0
If D is friend of A or C - +2 to relations between A and D
If D is friend of B or enemy of A or C - -2 to relations between A and D

A captures city off B
Puppets it - standard -2
If D is friend of A - ±0 (or -1)
If D is friend of B - -4

 

[Babri]

A casus belli system would be the absolute worst mechanic possible in a Civilization game. There is no good reason to implement one and on the time scale we're talking about, it makes no sense. It makes negative sense actually. If sense had a numerical value, this would be a negative.

Though, I heard there is a studio called Paradox that are known for publishing games with a casus belli system. You should go look at that.

As for the idea of it having a taste; the idea would be sour. A bitter-sort of sour.

Yeah right! But still less worse than the post quoted above.

Seriously though if you have a point to make then do so by giving some sort of reason than simply coming & bashing the other guy's point/idea.

As other people have mentioned, it will add some sense to the diplomacy system. No longer would you be punished to fight against a civ who broke their promise, attacked your CS ally etc. And wars were always fought with some sort of reason or justification. Some reasons were more legitimate than the others & thus varying amount of diplo penalties.

Sent from my One V using Tapatalk 2

 

[omnishakira]

make a better AI and im happy regardless of the rest

 

[poom3619]

make a better AI and im happy regardless of the rest

You know. Someone pointed out earlier that one of the CB in CiV's flaw is that it will make Domination Victory even easier as we can't say that current AI is smart in warfare. So if AI is better. Yay! Problem (is partly) solved.

I think there are like 10,000-ish posts complaining about CiV's AI and some mechanic in CiV have flaw that AI can't handle it properly.
I also hope CB's system will have adequate AI handle it, because it would be weird if ALL AI suddenly declare war on anyone who built the very first nuclear weapon.

 

[nokmirt]

Yeah right! But still less worse than the post quoted above.

Seriously though if you have a point to make then do so by giving some sort of reason than simply coming & bashing the other guy's point/idea.

As other people have mentioned, it will add some sense to the diplomacy system. No longer would you be punished to fight against a civ who broke their promise, attacked your CS ally etc. And wars were always fought with some sort of reason or justification. Some reasons were more legitimate than the others & thus varying amount of diplo penalties.

Sent from my One V using Tapatalk 2

This could also expand espionage. When you are trying to gather up a CB or a reason to declare war. Sometimes you go in to the other country and set up some situation where your civilians or troops were fired upon or taken hostage by the target civ, so you then have an excuse to declare war against that civ. Your spies can help with these little ruses or root them out when someone tries it in your territory. Certainly many CBs are not gathered honestly.

Of course some type of infamy factor could be added to the game which would track each civ's reputation in the world. You would have so much infamy to use up before you become the enemy of the world, because of this you have to plan accordingly. If the devs are to add a CB system to the game, they will most likely need to revamp diplomacy, to make it more advanced. I may be wrong but I don't see that happening. The AI is simply not good enough. Perhaps in Civ 6 that will change. Any CB system that is added now would have to be simplified like espionage is at the moment.

Does anyone feel that the devs will expand espionage in the new expansion? I would like to be able to gather more intelligence on civs the longer your spies are able to stay in their territory. I think that would be a good first step to more realism. Over time you can gather info about more cities and troop placements, etc.

 

[UWHabs]

I like this - instead of a flat warmonger penalty, have a much smaller penalty for every city conquered, the level of which depends on if the 3rd civ was an ally or an enemy of the second

(eg. A captures city off B
Liberates it back to C - standard ± 0
If D is friend of A or C - +2 to relations between A and D
If D is friend of B or enemy of A or C - -2 to relations between A and D

A captures city off B
Puppets it - standard -2
If D is friend of A - ±0 (or -1)
If D is friend of B - -4

Definitely makes some sense to do this. I'd definitely like to be able to go liberate city states from others without pissing off my allies. Or even going against a warmonger and liberating their cities to a weaker opponent - you'd think that anyone who wasn't friends with the civ I'm attacking would thank me.

 

[Sonereal]

How is it the worst possible system for Civ? I'd like to be able to declare war to liberate my allied city state without having everyone hate me, thank you very much

Then fix that. Don't introduce entirely new mechanics for the AI to screw up.

That's like saying that airpower is too underpowered/wonky and that the solution is to introduce an entirely new mechanic related to plane refueling.

So then it would need to come in with a more advanced diplomacy system. It would also need to have limits (eg. If I'm going to war in order to liberate my CS ally and then I conquer their whole empire, I need to be questioned about the motivation)

You first need more stuff to do in the game before having a more advanced diplomacy system.

1. AI sometimes declare war on you with "no good reason"

The AI has a reason. A bad reason? Sure, but so are most wars.

1.1. AI sometimes declare war on you despite you actually fought for "good reason"

Define "good reason".

1.1.1. AI sometime declare war on you because you conquer civ that use to conquer them.

On the time scales we're talking about, so?

1.1.2 AI sometime declare war on you because you conquer civ that declare war on you.
1.1.3 AI sometime declare war on you because you conquer civ that they asked you to.
1.2 AI sometime declare war because "they would lost anyway but want to cripple you"
... and the list probably goes on.

All can be fixed by improving on how the AI handle things, not by introducing new mechanics. That's why you don't see a ton of casus belli mods for CivIV.

You should validate your argument. Because criticize something just because it is bad (in your opinion) is not quite reasonable for anyone else.

It isn't an opinion. It is a fact. Any casus belli implementation in the expansion would be awful and I can guarantee we would all be here a week within release saying that implementation is poor and completely out-of-left-field for a civilization game.

Actually, I think I prefer the term "War goal" in vanilla VickyII. Because it exactly what I like to see in CiV at first.

Also a bad idea. Again, there is a company called Paradox that releases games like that. Go play Paradox games.

 

[RedFuneral]

Then fix that. Don't introduce entirely new mechanics for the AI to screw up.

...

Also a bad idea. Again, there is a company called Paradox that releases games like that. Go play Paradox games.

You know, I think you've got a good point. The current system really isn't entirely broken it just needs some tweaking. Considering the timescale, a system where you have to make a reason for war just doesn't work. You need to be able to react quickly to anything that the AI does.

I think what they should do is focus on the 'warmonger' penalty so that what defines a 'warmonger' scales according to what the other civs have been doing, their relationships with you and the other player, as well as how much personal interest they have in said wars. They need a system that determines how much each AI cares about aggressions against you and can easily pick a side in each conflict. An AI sharing a religion with AI X would of course be hostile to you for DOWing after X converts one of your cities, while AI Y with a third religion likely wouldn't care about the religion side of things. The same would work with city states merging together multiplyers of the various AI's relation with the CS as well as how close it is to their border(when you are liberating one at least).

For example, if Monty bullies or takes over a city state Civs that were allies with that CS wouldn't mind and may even get a positive boost with you for attacking their rival.

A civ like the Aztecs also shouldn't have the 'warmonger' penalty with you if they are a warmonger as well. They should instead see you as competition if you are close to them(in strength as well as being physically close to them.) There should also be a 'peacekeeper' modifier you gain by liberating citys/captured units. It'll make warmongers cautious around you and peaceful civs more trusting.

Instead of making a whole new CB system they should work with what they have. When an AI does something and approaches you and you pick "you'll pay for this" that should give you a small window when you can declare war without making the other civs feel you're over-aggressive. Of course they'd want to add in AI 'apology' screens for when they settle near you/send missionaries after they've agreed to stop to take full advantage of that system.

Another important factor would be distance. Depending on how close you are to each civ(and this distance would increase up until it affects the whole world late-game) should affect how much they care about what you are doing. They should care less about being allies with a CS far from them as well as on what wars you are in. Leader personality would come into this as well. Ghandi for example would be less than tolerant about wars further away while America would only care about their surrounding area(building off of how the US used to be an isolationist country)

That is what One World means to me, we need a diplomacy system where talks and trades affect the whole world rather than only those 2 countries who are involved. A world war should always be just around the corner giving you reason to ally and pump up those civs falling behind in the game as well as giving impact beyond the choice of ignoring/DOWing/denouncing your rivals in the late game. A runaway civ of course should end up with the whole world plotting against him, which would put the runaway human player on edge. You'd have to be constantly checking up on/bribing the AIs to keep them from grouping up against you. Much more fun than hitting 'end turn' for the last stretch of the game.

The AIs need to be declaring more DOFs amongst themselves and making big alliances to truly bring in WWI/II scenarios in the late game. When a 'Sorry for bullying your CS' message pops up late game you should be asking yourself "Is this worth declaring war over, I know I'm justified, but X's allies won't care and will likely attack me as well." Late game, choices like that should have major consequences on world diplomacy. It'll be your alliance vs. the AI's and you will never know for sure if the other alliances/lone nations in the game will join up with one side, sit it out, or help out one side in a more discreet way(selling s. resources/open borders).


On another note, I wouldn't be surprised if the announcement was still a few months out. If I were a game dev I know for sure I'd let something leak out early and monitor what the fans think/want/expect before anything is set in stone. If the fans like the idea it goes ahead, if not the 'leak' was a lie.

 

[istaris]

i see this CB discussion is back, i didnt want to post initially as i dont want this discussion to dominate this thread, here is my 2 cents

as one of the earlier poster had noted, the AI already have a CB system to denounce and declare war, the game already tracks the various potential CB as negative modifiers. Since that is the case, it makes no reason to me for them to not expand upon it.

There could be options on the diplomacy screen for DOW to give sub-options like "i DOW you to liberate my city state allies", "for peace for you are war monger", "you are phopheteering religious zealot". Non-involved civ will then evaluate your DOW based on the reason you gave and their diplomacy modifier with the opponent

Other civ whose religion is also suppressed by the opponent will support you and lessen the chance of war monger penalty on you, while other reasons they may be less likely to support. Actually the current AI already have a similar system but the one-size-fit-all war monger penalty for everything makes the relationship confusing especially when the AI is deceptive. It also tie in better with religion and pledge to protect

It is important to know the modifiers between civ and civ themselves can hide negative modifiers when deceptive, and spies should also tell you the real diplomatic relation between civ

Sometimes i wonder if the DOFed AI numerous attempts to settle a city super near your capital, spying, bully city states and ignoring your warning is actually deliberately coded to annoy the player to DOW them, so that the player will have a diplomatic penalty. If so, it actually works really well and i like it, just that the system is opaque and frustrating, i am seeing it as nonsensical AI rather than brillant brinkmanship

 

[filli_noctus]

No need for the snark, chaps. A CB system doesn't have to be applied in the same was as Paradox do, it can just be assumed that all possible CBs are applied when you declare, showing the player a list of the justifications they have on declaration and the kind of goals they can achieve without antagonising an average neutral third party (reparations for spying up to conquest for repeated unwarranted aggression). These are the kind of things an AI should be considering anyway but whether you want it call it cassus belli or improving the AI it still amounts to the same thing.

 

[de_baser]

Re: Casus Belli:
Rmember when Civ 2 congress would veto your DOW?
Yeah, that was annoying.

War is irrational an sich and any way to try to rationalize your way into one is like a newly recovering alcoholic, jonesing like ever before, looking for enablers. Frankly, any theory of "Just War" is laughable.

 

[poom3619]

It isn't an opinion. It is a fact. Any casus belli implementation in the expansion would be awful and I can guarantee we would all be here a week within release saying that implementation is poor and completely out-of-left-field for a civilization game.
Also a bad idea. Again, there is a company called Paradox that releases games like that. Go play Paradox games.

Well, I think I should thank you for "clarify" your post, and you would not surprised if I say I like CK2, EU3 and Vicky2. But last times I checked, people came here to discuss what you want in CiV. Not to asking what game should I play if CiV WILL gone worse.
---

Oh yeah. Come to thinking, They could add industrial-era Imperialism Policy tree that focus on oversea colonization and exploitation along with medieval Monarchy tree that focus on "centralization" ,But having even more policy tree and it would be too many for anyone to love it. So rather not.

 

[Sonereal]

Well, I think I should thank you for "clarify" your post, and you would not surprised if I say I like CK2, EU3 and Vicky2. But last times I checked, people came here to discuss what you want in CiV. Not to asking what game should I play if CiV WILL gone worse.

And I come here to discuss why you, and many people, are usually wrong.

 

[RedFuneral]

Oh yeah. Come to thinking, They could add industrial-era Imperialism Policy tree that focus on oversea colonization and exploitation along with medieval Monarchy tree that focus on "centralization" ,But having even more policy tree and it would be too many for anyone to love it. So rather not.

The CCTP mod actually brings in just that except that both Imperialism and Monarchy are both available at the start along with Pacifism. The policy side of that mod works quite well IMO, but I doubt we're be seeing radical changes in the game that would be needed for such an in-depth system.