Civ V - One World Speculation Thread!

[Babri]

We definitely need a Casus Beli. Current diplomacy system is just so unsatisfactory. Warmonger penalties for conquering someone who's been a real nuisance to everybody and who declared war on you is just silly.

This. It would be a great xpack even if it only have a well implemented casus belli system.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

 

[SehWho]

This. It would be a great xpack even if it only have a well implemented casus belli system.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

In all honesty, just that would be enough to get my money.

 

[Menzies]

This. It would be a great xpack even if it only have a well implemented casus belli system.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

I think Casus Belli would be great. If you could state you were declaring war just to liberate CS, and then fulfill it, without taking other cities etc. then you should get diplomacy bonuses with other Civs (except the one you attacked of course)

 

[WChrisMullen]

Absolutely. I hate having leaders come up and taunt me for bullying my city-state allies multiple times, and then have to take a diplomatic hit for declaring war in order to get them to stop.

 

[Irkalla]

Absolutely. I hate having leaders come up and taunt me for bullying my city-state allies multiple times, and then have to take a diplomatic hit for declaring war in order to get them to stop.

The answer here is obvious. Go to war. **** the police.

 

[Xiao Xiong]

Should be tied to the demand system. If they refuse your demand or they break their word you should be able to denounce and then DoW without being a warmonger.

 

[B0wman]

CivWorld .... Facebook social game
Play the World .... Civ3 expansion with focus on multiplayer features

with that in mind:

One World .... multiplayer focussed expansion for CiV

 

[member66170]

If there is a Causus Belli system, I hope that the AI knows how to use it.

By that I mean, I don't want the AI to become all Civ4 like where they would never betray you and declare war because they dont like you rather than because you have stuff you want. Like a human player, I want them to follow real politik, so the people they want to invade is decided in the same way as now, but as part of their war preparation they try to orchestrate a CB. If they really can't, then maybe move down the list of people they want to invade until they find one with a CB (or when they can create one).

If the AI merely declares war on you because they have a bunch of CB against you, but your on the other side of the world and much more powerful than you, then I would actively see this as a step back.

But I sometimes feel that I'm in the minority as I like to play against an AI that tries to win, rather than AI that tries to role play.

 

[Babri]

If the AI merely declares war on you because they have a bunch of CB against you, but your on the other side of the world and much more powerful than you, then I would actively see this as a step back.

But I sometimes feel that I'm in the minority as I like to play against an AI that tries to win, rather than AI that tries to role play.

There would be fewer casus belli against the distant enemies since you don't share borders. That might actually help in solving AI crazy behaviour rather than worsening the situation.
Holy War is one of the exception. And if they introduce colonialism casus belli then one of the prerequisites would be that you are significantly more powerful & advanced than your target. All in all this would make AI more reasonable & less crazy.


Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

 

[fedsen]

I think the Casus Belli idead sounds good and should be doable.

I'd also like a Great Diplomat, that grants you +x with a city state and/or reduces the decrease speed for x turns

I'd also like it if it were possible for 1 melee and 1 ranged unit to share the same tile, but it would probably just lead to the ai crushing me with unstoppable armies everytime

Last but not least, I'd like to be able to choose between several Leaders for the same civ and be able to play scenarios in multiplayer.

I think the diplomat and tiles thing might ruin the game, but several leaders and multiplayer scenarios would definitely improve the experience for me.

 

[mitsho]

Casus Belli sounds bad as you want the biggest possible freedom for your sandbox civ game. If they were to include something like this, I'd rather have it be a "war goal" and tie that together with happiness for example. What I certainly do not want is a Paradox Style ironclad system that you need to learn how to cheat (= bad for beginners). A Casus Belli that only lets you declare under certain circumstances = bad.

2 units on one tile will certainly not come since that would be a new game. What it basically would mean is that ranged units would be the best to attack and would never be without cover of another unit...

Several Leaders is unlikely imho, what's the "diplomat and tiles" thing?

 

[IxI]

I would like some more modern themes. For example, warfare doesn't change much in civ5, but when was last time in real life when there was a real war between equally strong opponents both using a modern army? Nowadays it's all about terrorism, drone warefare, asymmetrically wars, securing ressources by "investing" and "helping" other countries, not by land grapping and annexing.

I want late game babarians to be terrorists.
Drones.
Diplomatic options to help other players in exchange for ressources.

I want fighting and I want to use my units without declaring total war every time.

 

[headcase]

C.B. would tie in well with war weariness. The better your CB, the less weariness you need to worry about.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I am leary about putting in copycat systems from other games into civ. It detracts from the civ-ness. It would be like the 1upt imbroglio all over again.

 

[Beefie]

Like many have stated before, I hope it revamps diplomacy between Civilizations and the interactions they can have. A colonization system would be great to encourage settling overseas and display this important aspect of history, and could introduce long suspected civs like Portugal and Zulu.

C.B. would tie in well with war weariness. The better your CB, the less weariness you need to worry about.

I have also always thought of a similar system to try and approximate a CB system, with a better CB giving more time until war weariness set in e.g
Agressor: no valid CB, 20 turns until war weariness begins to set in.
Contested Land: (3-5 adjacent border tiles for past 30 turns) 25 turns until WW.
Jihad[controversial?]: (Religion Y has been enhanced, founder of religion Y has declared a jihad against civ X, Y most be majority religion of your civ) 30 turns until WW begins to set in. Faith per kill.
Crusade: (Holy City of Religion Y has been conquered, Y must be majority religion in your civ) 40 turns until WW. Big faith bonus but big unhappiness hit if peace declared before recapture.
Liberator: (Your city/City-state/Other Civ capital has been captured by Civ X in the past 50 turns) 40 turns until WW. Big culture bonus but big unhappiness hit if peace declared before liberation.

And then war weariness will amount to +1 until peace is declared. Thus you'd need a clear plan of attack before declaring war and this would help reduce protracted wars or empty declarations across the world.
If you are attacked (or have a defensive pact with someone who is) you are in a "defensive war" and have same turns+5 to properly defend yourself even if the agressor decides to try and push through the initial unhappiness hit.

 

[Babri]

Casus Belli sounds bad as you want the biggest possible freedom for your sandbox civ game. If they were to include something like this, I'd rather have it be a "war goal" and tie that together with happiness for example. What I certainly do not want is a Paradox Style ironclad system that you need to learn how to cheat (= bad for beginners). A Casus Belli that only lets you declare under certain circumstances = bad.

First of all this not Total War. Civilization is a mix of diplomacy, empire building & warfare. Casus Belli system reflects this & discourages constant warfare. It will also discourage crazy behaviour from the AI & can be a very rewarding experience for roleplaying players.

Secondly I don't think anybody here wants an identical casus belli system to paradox games. The basic concept would be the same i. e to add some logic & war goals behind the warfare. But the ways you could get these can be changed to match the theme of Civilization series. Thus designing it in a way that it somewhat reflects the natural human behaviour. So for example if your opponent is very rich but weak, u might get a subjugate casus belli & so on.


Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

 

[WChrisMullen]

There could also be a punitive war, where you wipe out a guy who has just been causing problems for the world. It would be similar to "aggressor," but you wouldn't get the "warmonger" hit from other civs because the guy you took out was a jerk. I had something similar happen in one of my games where Bismarck backstabbed me when we had a DoF and every other civ ganged up on him.

 

[grandgeneralbob]

I've never seen so many people agree to something like this before in this game. I too, would like a CB system in here.

Maybe if enough of us did something, they would add it. I mean, it's like we're basically telling them how to take our money.

As for implementing it, how would it be done........ eg. what are the CB's?

different religion, contested borders, past DOW's, fight over CS's, Ramkhamghaeng ate your taco blah blah blah i like it all, and i also think it will help with the ai's wierd diplo skills.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I gotta admit, I like the idea for a CB. I think this might be because people are not too fond of the Warmonger penalty, and I gotta agree, diplomacy is considered bad enough as it is, and there's absolutely no freedom in it, if you make one bad move you'll get everybody against you, and that one bad move is pretty much decleration of a war. So something to replace that or maybe made it more flexible would potentially fix the issue.

 

[civ54lyfe]

I like:

-the Great Diplomat idea, also why not a Great Spy. I believe that was brought some a long time back.

-Jihad religion enhancement. Just sounds awesome and esp. the faith per kill.


I was wondering if the idea of making true "Alliances" has been floated yet. I'm talking about in the aspect of modern times NATO (military alliance), the EU & ASEAN (economic alliance). This new type of Alliance would do more than simply be a "pledge to DoW" + open borders. And the duration would be 90+ turns. This also fits in with the One World thing. Also this would imply at least a superficial option of "shared VC".