Cyrus Doesn't Get His Bonus From Declaring Joint War?

[SxSnts9]

I thought declaring a joint war on someone was the same as declaring a surprise war. I didn't receive my bonus movement from declaring a joint war on Cleopatra just now. I offered Peter a joint war and he accepted. What gives?

The only thing I can think of is that Cleo had denounced me and I was able to declare a formal war. I could have sworn joint always went surprise, but is it possible it will go formal if you have the option for a formal war?

 

[gimper42]

I don't know, but it feels like you always get the worst possible outcome when you ask for a joint war. I don't know that a joint war is not a completely separate type of declaration from surprise or formal. I wish there was some clarification.

And for the record, you don't get the bonus when you declare war on a City-State, either. Frankly, I cannot see the difference between that and a surprise declaration on a major civ.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Joint Wars are technically Formal not Surprise.

 

[oedali]

I've been asking this Q on the forums for a while too and finally got the A. In terms of warmonger penalty, it looks like the following:

Surprise War = heaviest penalty
Formal War w/ Casus Belli "Denounced" = less penalty (Joint War in this category)
Formal War w/ more sophisticated Casus Belli = even less penalty

 

[nzcamel]

You'd think if you declare a joint war on another Civ, that unless you have denounced them 5 turns earlier it should still be a surprise war. You still should suffer the higher negative perception (esp from Tomy); and Cyrus should still get his bonus movement.

Another odd thing, the bonus movement doesn't seem to kick in till the turn after which you declared your surprise war.

 

[Leyrann]

Joint war is, through some weird logic, always a formal war, even if neither of the attackers has denounced the defender before. It's weird.

 

[nzcamel]

Joint war is, through some weird logic, always a formal war, even if neither of the attackers has denounced the defender before. It's weird.

Which it shouldn't be. I can't think of a good reason why you get that benefit when ganging up on a Civ.

 

[c4c6]

If the human player agrees with an AI-player to declare a joint war on another AI-player, this AI-player obviously isn't surprised.

(Only the human player alone can surprise the AI)

 

[nzcamel]

If the human player agrees with an AI-player to declare a joint war on another AI-player, this AI-player obviously isn't surprised.

(Only the human player alone can surprise the AI)

Given those wars are declared immediately, it doesn't make much dif...but...isn't the AI compartmentalised to a degree? i.e. AI Japan doesn't know everything about AI China and so on?

In V where a Civ could propose a joint war with you, and you could put them off for 10 turns (an option I really like for the record); if the AI wasn't compartmentalised, that would be a real problem.

 

[c4c6]

From this point of view ideally there would be a standard interface between game host & ALL players and it wouldn't matter, whether the players are human (and using the same mouse (hotseat) or another (connected online)) or the players are just processes running on the same PC (different CPU cores) or other PCs remote ... We all want a challenging game, so such things are at least still a very long way to go.

I suppose, if you ask for a joint war and the AI-player agrees or an AI-player proposes a joint war with you, at that point the agenda of the AI as a whole is to "lure" you into a war, which weakens you (eg. your science, city development etc.) by keeping you busy ... and finally killing you with the remaining civs. Problem is, that the AI cannot perform well a war of attrition. (Or any war at all.)

Concerning the rules, I agree, that the human player should receive the Surprise War penalty (at least, if he is the initiator of the joint war) without denouncement.

 

[nzcamel]

But the AI is also compartmentalised right...? Were they not, they'd never cooperate with the human player. Especially not if another AI Civ had what they wanted. They'd never go to war against each other.

It would be much harder to get the AI to respond to the right incentives if it wasn't -mostly- limiting itself to seeing itself as only playing Civ X, while that Civs turn lasted.