war is always just one state. This doesn't make sence. Countries, religions, and even races have hated each other for millenia. They are not always at war, but this true deep hate has led to countless "skirmishes" and espionage happenings to take place.
Because of this it seems war should be not something you can just "declare". It is actually something that happens as the game plays out. In away the agression level is like what I am saying it should be. But this should allow for different things. Firstly for simplicity lets think of the hate scale as 0 being hate and 100 being max like.
Trade should be able to be done at values of 35 and up only.
Attacking someone drops this value proportional to the damage dealt. This means early on attacks can be made and not have such a dramatic effect on trade, political, militaristic, and even technological aspects o the game. This also means that even in the later game, one or 2 attacks can be made with out devistating changes (stuff happens.. People shoot down jets when they get to close... or are actually flying over where they shouldn't be).
Now the reality is, we wouldn't use a 0 to 100 scale. Rather instead, it be allowed so the scale is not symetric. So for example lets use a 200 point scale, 200 is mak like and 0 is Total Hate. However set 125 to be Neutral, and 100 to be no trade, and 50 means they got access to fanatical tactics against you (or vise versa). I think a better fit would me something like a 1000 point scale where 800 is Neutral
Keep in mind each Civ has a value for each other civ and they may not have the same value as you have for them (You attacked them... they never even attacked you). This can have big playouts to then. Rather than effect the trade as in can't trade at all, it would be if they hate you, then they will not give you anything (trade or no trade). BUT you can always give them stuff (this would of course get you into good relations.. Eventually).
Eh.. Just what I was thinking.
Then from there the "declaration" of war could be more like a mobilize for war... something like that.
Because of this it seems war should be not something you can just "declare". It is actually something that happens as the game plays out. In away the agression level is like what I am saying it should be. But this should allow for different things. Firstly for simplicity lets think of the hate scale as 0 being hate and 100 being max like.
Trade should be able to be done at values of 35 and up only.
Attacking someone drops this value proportional to the damage dealt. This means early on attacks can be made and not have such a dramatic effect on trade, political, militaristic, and even technological aspects o the game. This also means that even in the later game, one or 2 attacks can be made with out devistating changes (stuff happens.. People shoot down jets when they get to close... or are actually flying over where they shouldn't be).
Now the reality is, we wouldn't use a 0 to 100 scale. Rather instead, it be allowed so the scale is not symetric. So for example lets use a 200 point scale, 200 is mak like and 0 is Total Hate. However set 125 to be Neutral, and 100 to be no trade, and 50 means they got access to fanatical tactics against you (or vise versa). I think a better fit would me something like a 1000 point scale where 800 is Neutral
Keep in mind each Civ has a value for each other civ and they may not have the same value as you have for them (You attacked them... they never even attacked you). This can have big playouts to then. Rather than effect the trade as in can't trade at all, it would be if they hate you, then they will not give you anything (trade or no trade). BUT you can always give them stuff (this would of course get you into good relations.. Eventually).
Eh.. Just what I was thinking.
Then from there the "declaration" of war could be more like a mobilize for war... something like that.
