Historical Mechanics

[TomKQT]

Well now, are they warlike still? Where are the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists who advocated territorial expansion through mindless slaughter? Germany changed and so did Japan. They were peaceful ever since WW2 and with the assistance of other countries look at how well they're doing now.

But your proposal was "All Civilizations who have never declared war gain a global 20% increase to all outputs.", that's what caught my attention initially. The history of Prussia/Germany etc. is full of smaller or larger wars. And how far are we from the WWII? It's just a moment in the overall history of mankind. Of course they changed, but in terms of Civ6 it took just few turns from a warmonger who shouldn't get any bonus (from your point of view) to a peacufull and prosperous country, which should receive a bonus for not declaring a war?
Japan also wasn't really a peacefull country throughout the history.
Sure, some civilizations that were too expansionist were either completely destroyed or are not much influential now (Mongols). But other civilizations who were always peaceful had also bad endings. I don't see a clear and logical trend in this.

And after all, wars have been a very important source (motivation) of technological progress, it would even make sense to make the exact opposite of your idea (bonus science while at war). Also - some countries profited from wars (new territory, resources etc.).

 

[Disgustipated]

Listening to your music and wearing your blue jeans: If one civilization is fully culturally influenced by another, they cannot declare war on each other.

Interesting mechanic. But don't get your hopes up too much Canadians, we still may wish to annex your lands.

with the assistance of other countries

*cough* United States *cough*.

 

[Karpius]

History has shown that peaceful cooperation is far more advantageous than conflict so yes it is historical and significant.

I read alot of history and that is not an assessment I would have ever made. Like nature, history is all about conflict. Whether it is open warfare or otherwise, it is all about gaining dominance over the other guy. In the scope of human history, that has almost always meant war.

 

[Kyro]

But your proposal was "All Civilizations who have never declared war gain a global 20% increase to all outputs.", that's what caught my attention initially. The history of Prussia/Germany etc. is full of smaller or larger wars. And how far are we from the WWII? It's just a moment in the overall history of mankind. Of course they changed, but in terms of Civ6 it took just few turns from a warmonger who shouldn't get any bonus (from your point of view) to a peacufull and prosperous country, which should receive a bonus for not declaring a war?
Japan also wasn't really a peacefull country throughout the history.
Sure, some civilizations that were too expansionist were either completely destroyed or are not much influential now (Mongols). But other civilizations who were always peaceful had also bad endings. I don't see a clear and logical trend in this.

And after all, wars have been a very important source (motivation) of technological progress, it would even make sense to make the exact opposite of your idea (bonus science while at war). Also - some countries profited from wars (new territory, resources etc.).

For all features implemented in the game the first priority is always to ensure it is balanced and has a functional purpose in the game. Did you miss my explanation of why I chose "never declared war" over "never declared war over X turns"? The latter is more accurate to history but the former is more balanced for game play. If we were to award the bonus after let's say even 60 turns of not declaring war then it is practically useless since it doesn't do anything to tip the scales in favor of peaceful play; especially since warmongers benefit the most from early wars and they will end up getting the bonus even though they didn't earn it.

In fact, if we are to go along with the example you have listed, a few decades = a few turns. By extension of that logic if I were to change the feature in order to satisfy the logical premise you have posited, I would need to change the clause to: All Civilizations who have not declared war in the past 5 turns gain 20% bonus to all outputs. Sure that would be more "logical". But pray tell, how does that do anything meaningful to game play?

You said it yourself Germany and Japan made immense progress in just a few decades thanks to cooperation. How much progress did WW1/WW2 get us again? How would you implement the historical proven fact that cooperation is more powerful than conflict?

History is ridden with war and therefore all examples we have of successful Civilizations is that they were involved in it one way or the other. To assume that that means war is good for progress however, is committing a logical fallacy of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (mistaking correlation for causation) . To posit that one should get a Science Bonus when at war is Circular Reasoning and fallacious because you must first assume that similar or better progress would not have been made peacefully when that assumption is not proven in the first place. The vast majority of military technologies were first conceived peacefully, from gunpowder to dynamite to nuclear weaponry.

What we do have concrete evidence for however, is that mutual cooperation leads to the most amount of progress in the least amount of time. If you want war to give bonuses to science etc. go ahead. Just make sure both sides of history are well represented and the power of peace and cooperation is properly and powerfully implemented in the game.

 

[Kyro]

I read alot of history and that is not an assessment I would have ever made. Like nature, history is all about conflict. Whether it is open warfare or otherwise, it is all about gaining dominance over the other guy. In the scope of human history, that has almost always meant war.

We've been trough this. History is not about conflict. It is about Survival, Living and there are a lot more aspects to survival than military conflict. If you want to sum up history please do fair job of not downplaying other equally important components of history. I don't see you talking about the arts, sciences, philosophy, faith or about society and architecture.

 

[CHP]

The most warlike people never exist for long and their cultural and moral constructs always collapse on themselves one way or the other. You cannot encourage war to your people and advocate that they help each other at the same time, they are both 2 sides to the same coin.

**cough** USA **cough**

 

[Kyro]

**cough** USA **cough**

Yeah but are they warmongers now? Do they advocate conquering other countries for profit? How many have they helped? It's easy to put Countries in the negative light when you ignore all the good they're done for the world.

 

[DWilson]

America's issue is it's cultural and philosophical imperialism. While generally we've stopped pushing for more territory, we tend to expect other nations to think and behave the way we do. Combined with our massively over-sized military and notable economic influence, we tend to be aggressive in enforcing that expectation. It doesn't help that our leaders are happy to abuse this with and against other nations, especially with regards to nations that also go against perceived economic interests.

But this is getting off topic...

 

[Karpius]

If you want to sum up history please do fair job of not downplaying other equally components of history. I don't see you talking about the arts, sciences, philosophy, faith or about society and architecture.

In no way am I trying to downplay the many achievements of humanity. Nor would I ever categorize 'war' as an achievement. I do not believe war was ever 'essential' to the human experience or progress, but I feel much the same about faith and philosophy and science. However, war and faith and philosophy and science and art are all part of the historical record, and the single most pervasive force in that record is conflict.

If we speak of survival - basic survival - humans do not need big, heated houses. We do not need guns or swords. We do not need TVs or video games. Nor do we need music, literature, faith, etc. These are all things that humans desire...and much more. This desire drives us in so many ways into various conflicts simply to achieve these things. Throughout history, these conflicts have often become bloody. From the petty brigand to the king seeking to increase his realm. From the Prophet converting the heathen, to the poor cobbler who covets his neighbor's wife. Conflict is the driving dynamic of history. One force pushing against another force. One idea butting heads with another idea and creating a new idea.

We can place a high value on peaceful co-operation. We can strive for it. We can reward it in our game and teach it to our children in the hopes they grasp it. But we cannot ignore the historical record. For good or bad, we are, today, the product of all these events that came before us.

So, while I would not be opposed to a reward for peaceful play in Civ6 (since that happens to be my preferred style), I cannot agree that it would qualify as a 'history mechanic'.

 

[Kyro]

In no way am I trying to downplay the many achievements of humanity. Nor would I ever categorize 'war' as an achievement. I do not believe war was ever 'essential' to the human experience or progress, but I feel much the same about faith and philosophy and science. However, war and faith and philosophy and science and art are all part of the historical record, and the single most pervasive force in that record is conflict.

If we speak of survival - basic survival - humans do not need big, heated houses. We do not need guns or swords. We do not need TVs or video games. Nor do we need music, literature, faith, etc. These are all things that humans desire...and much more. This desire drives us in so many ways into various conflicts simply to achieve these things. Throughout history, these conflicts have often become bloody. From the petty brigand to the king seeking to increase his realm. From the Prophet converting the heathen, to the poor cobbler who covets his neighbor's wife. Conflict is the driving dynamic of history. One force pushing against another force. One idea butting heads with another idea and creating a new idea.

We can place a high value on peaceful co-operation. We can strive for it. We can reward it in our game and teach it to our children in the hopes they grasp it. But we cannot ignore the historical record. For good or bad, we are, today, the product of all these events that came before us.

So, while I would not be opposed to a reward for peaceful play in Civ6 (since that happens to be my preferred style), I cannot agree that it would qualify as a 'history mechanic'.

In case you missed it, I also said Living and obviously I'm not just referring to basic survival. The drive to make life better, to seek progress and meaning is part of the survival instinct of Mankind from a scientific viewpoint. Human Brains are wired to do things that contribute to survival and all that you've listed is simply an extension of that.

You're trying to link up power struggle with military conflict as a synonymous term and that is misleading.

All stories are about power struggles and human history is no different. That doesn't mean military conflict is central in human history.

Even peaceful cooperation is a power struggle. There is obviously an obstacle, usually a lack of resources . Then there is a struggle to overcome that obstacle together. That's conflict, but not a military one.
Each day I struggle to get out of my bed. There's a power struggle even there and that's not military in nature.

I am clearly separating what you are trying to lump together. Human history is about power struggles yes but power struggles come in myriads of forms and bloody conflicts are only one part of the picture.

 

[CHP]

USA's military expenditures is 36% of the whole world's military expenditure... Even if you consider the percentage of GDP dedicated to military expenditures, USA is the 11th most militarised nation in the world !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

No other nation has such military–industrial complex. No other nation sells more weapons !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World's_largest_arms_exporters

The USA have been at war for 93% of their time. Only 21 years of peace since the creation of the USA in 1776...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States

No, sorry, you can't claim USA is a peacefull nation... Not exactly blood-thirsty warmongers, but absolutly not a peacefull nation !

Note : I'm french, and i would not consider France as a peacefull nation (% of GDP to the military is high, we sell weapons all over the world, and like the USA we like to send troops everywhere in the world... "for freedom", or course !

 

[Kyro]

USA's military expenditures is 36% of the whole world's military expenditure... Even if you consider the percentage of GDP dedicated to military expenditures, USA is the 11th most militarised nation in the world !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

No other nation has such military–industrial complex. No other nation sells more weapons !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World's_largest_arms_exporters

The USA have been at war for 93% of their time. Only 21 years of peace since the creation of the USA in 1776...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States

No, sorry, you can't claim USA is a peacefull nation... Not exactly blood-thirsty warmongers, but absolutly not a peacefull nation !

Note : I'm french, and i would not consider France as a peacefull nation (% of GDP to the military is high, we sell weapons all over the world, and like the USA we like to send troops everywhere in the world... "for freedom", or course !

How many wars waged in the name of profit?

You are pitting Security/Deterrence against Peace and that is a false Dichotomy. How is a country not being peaceful for being prepared to defend itself?

 

[DWilson]

How many wars waged in the name of profit?

You are pitting Security/Deterrence against Peace and that is a false Dichotomy. How is a country not being peaceful for being prepared to defend itself?

Would not a more agreeable government, and an economy more open to our influence and investment be something that is potentially profitable? Likewise, a government more agreeable with our own than our geopolitical rivals is a lucrative proposition. It's important to recognize indirect profit.

 

[Kyro]

Would not a more agreeable government, and an economy more open to our influence and investment be something that is potentially profitable? Likewise, a government more agreeable with our own than our geopolitical rivals is a lucrative proposition. It's important to recognize indirect profit.

Well it's a little far-fetched to posit that the US war on terror was for "indirect profit" when it cost more than a Trillion Dollars isn't it?

The point is, the US would have earned much, much more if they had spent their money elsewhere and ignored all these conflicts so it is clear any sort of profit was never the main point of consideration for those wars.

 

[DWilson]

Well it's a little far-fetched to posit that the US war on terror was for "indirect profit" when it cost more than a Trillion Dollars isn't it?

The point is, the US would have earned much more if they had spent their money elsewhere and ignored all these conflicts so it is clear any sort of profit was never the main point of consideration for their wars.

As a whole nation? Absolutely. And that's probably what they should have done.

But profits and losses are not shared evenly. The nation took the burden of the huge cost, while only taking geopolitical influence in return (and much of that backfired). The individuals and private parties whom were lobbying for that approach, however? Many absolutely profited, in many industries. To reject that is ridiculous.

 

[kryat]

This discussion about whether or not the USA should be considered a warmonger could best be represented by another possible mechanic:

Global Superpower

Each civilization is assigned a power score, which is consitituted by its number of military units; it’s number of strategic, bonus, and luxury resources within its borders; its culture, faith, and science outputs; and its gross GPT. Any civilization becomes a superpower if their power score makes up more than a particular percentage of the global power score, scaled to number of civilizations in play at the start of the game. Global superpowers are more likely to get favorable deals and are less likely to be the targets for declarations of war, but suffer -0.33 loyalty per citizen per turn.

 

[Karpius]

I am clearly separating what you are trying to lump together. Human history is about power struggles yes but power struggles come in myriads of forms and bloody conflicts are only one part of the picture.

Even if I stick to the strictest interpretation of 'military', the historical record speaks for itself. In the context of a reward for peaceful play in Civ6, there is no historical precedent. There is no current nation-state or other polity that can claim a war-free existence.

How many wars waged in the name of profit?

Every war is for some form of profit. Protecting 'our interests' abroad is all about protecting our ability to make money and keep the citizenry at home relatively happy. Even when one group seeks 'ideological' independence from another, it is to take control of the means for profit making.

The USA have been at war for 93% of their time. Only 21 years of peace since the creation of the USA in 1776...

That would only count the formally recognized military engagements. Though I have not done that specific research, my suspicion is that the years of 'peace' is considerably less than 21 years. For instance, the cross border raids into Mexico against Pancho Villa (justified though they might be) probably do not figure into the equation.

 

[Kyro]

This discussion about whether or not the USA should be considered a warmonger could best be represented by another possible mechanic:

Global Superpower

Each civilization is assigned a power score, which is consitituted by its number of military units; it’s number of strategic, bonus, and luxury resources within its borders; its culture, faith, and science outputs; and its gross GPT. Any civilization becomes a superpower if their power score makes up more than a particular percentage of the global power score, scaled to number of civilizations in play at the start of the game. Global superpowers are more likely to get favorable deals and are less likely to be the targets for declarations of war, but suffer -0.33 loyalty per citizen per turn.

Not so sure about the loyalty part but one thing I would add would be a percentage boost in envoy acquisition rate to represent their greater diplomatic influence.

 

[Kyro]

Even if I stick to the strictest interpretation of 'military', the historical record speaks for itself. In the context of a reward for peaceful play in Civ6, there is no historical precedent. There is no current nation-state or other polity that can claim a war-free existence.

The fact that there is no historical precedence of a War-free country does nothing to discredit the historical evidence proving that mutual cooperation and peace leads to the most progress. You are using the lack of a historical precedent to justify the lack of reward for peaceful play and that's not in line with the facts.

Every war is for some form of profit. Protecting 'our interests' abroad is all about protecting our ability to make money and keep the citizenry at home relatively happy. Even when one group seeks 'ideological' independence from another, it is to take control of the means for profit making.

Must I qualify every single word I use so you cannot exploit its loopholes to misrepresent what I said? Having to add parentheses for every time I use the word "Profit" is not very fun to do you know? I am sure you understood what I meant by profit and
especially in context of Civ 6. It is definitely not referring to profit in the sense of staying safe and secure. It is profit in terms of taking what is not yours.

 

[Karpius]

But profits and losses are not shared evenly. The nation took the burden of the huge cost, while only taking geopolitical influence in return (and much of that backfired). The individuals and private parties whom were lobbying for that approach, however? Many absolutely profited, in many industries. To reject that is ridiculous.

Its far more complex than a simple dollars and cents ledger based on what has occurred so far there. The long term losses or gains are yet to be tallied. History has yet to determine whether America's military involvement will prove profitable or detrimental, but at the time of those decisions, it was generally agreed that non-intervention would mean severe long term loss in treasure and geo-political influence (which goes right back to treasure).