I Finally Found A Bad Event

[InsidiousMage]

One of the great things about Old World is the events. They are engaging, interesting, and can genuinely change the direction of a game in way that feels organic and built upon what has happened before. Even if I find an event underwhelming and don't like the choices offered, events feel fair because they obey the game's logic. However, I just encountered an event that I think is actually bad - Rome declared war on me while at peace, which you can't do otherwise. I think is actually unfair to the player since it breaks the game's own logic. The rest of the event is fine, Rome declaring on me makes sense and, again, builds on previous things that have happened in the game but I really, really, really hate that the AI gets to break the rules. Its really not fun. The easy and simple fix is to simply have Rome break the peace a turn before war is declared.

I've attached a save file at the end of the turn before Rome declares war, if anyone is interested in looking at it.

 

[Solver]

You can also declare war from Peace - yes, you have to go through Truce first, but you can go through both steps immediately so it's just an extra click.

 

[InsidiousMage]

You can also declare war from Peace - yes, you have to go through Truce first, but you can go through both steps immediately so it's just an extra click.

Was not aware of that. So, I think there should be a delay between ending a peace and being unable to declare war, like two turns should be fine. I'm curious about how many people know that because it does seem to defeat the purpose of having peace if you can just break the peace and declare war the same turn. It feels counter-intuitive.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

It's not counter-intuitive, you are just not used to it.

 

[InsidiousMage]

It's not counter-intuitive, you are just not used to it.

No, its counter-intuitive. What's the point of "peace" if it means that anyone can still declare war on you? If the only functional difference between peace and truce is literally one click then there is no real difference.

And I do want to reiterate that I really don't like the way this works, especially in regard to events. I was at war with the Hittites to complete an ambition and they had converted to Manicheaism during our war and Carthage declared war on me through peace because they were also Manicheaism. I got event where the Carthaginian king told me was going to war over our religious differences, which is fine, but the event would be so much better if it was "make peace. . . or else!" with "or else" being war, tribute, or conversion. That feels "fair" in a way that the AI just declaring war doesn't. Again, I really like the events in OW, especially the ones that put the player in an unfavorable position because they always force the player to respond to the situation but in a way that, again, feels "fair." Yeah, it sucks having to play tribute to prevent a war but at least you have the option. And I'm totally fine with the AI declaring war when you only have a truce without an option to prevent it but I feel if you have peace you really shouldn't be able to declare with a few turn having passed by.

 

[Solver]

When you break peace, you get a reputation hit, so there's a penalty for doing so. That doesn't of course exclude the possibility of some events being poorly defined.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

No, its counter-intuitive. What's the point of "peace" if it means that anyone can still declare war on you? If the only functional difference between peace and truce is literally one click then there is no real difference.

Both are just agreements. Agreements can be broken at any time, by the will of any of the involved parties.

A lot of games arbitrarily make it impossible to declare war in certain circumstances, and that is what you are used to, that was your expectation, and that expectation was betrayed here. But in this game it is certainly possible to "surprise" another player with a war declaration even if the status was peace, so no game rules were circumvented.
There are events were you get the option to pay tribute, and there are others were you don't get that choice. Both is "fair" since that decision is simply not yours to make. If the other side wants war, that's what they should be able to get, just as any human player who wants a war can always get it.

 

[InsidiousMage]

When you break peace, you get a reputation hit, so there's a penalty for doing so.

It's been awhile since I've checked but I remember the opinion penalty being so small as to not matter.

Agreements can be broken at any time, by the will of any of the involved parties.A lot of games arbitrarily make it impossible to declare war in certain circumstances

Sure, in real life but OW is a game and it needs to function with the logic of a game. If I make an agreement with someone I don't expect them to able break without it the hows and whys of the ways they can break the agreement to be made obvious.

that was your expectation, and that expectation was betrayed here.

If a game is going to act counter the way games in the genre generally function then it needs to be clearly signaled to the player that the game is going to things differently. If you are going to subvert expectations then that needs to be clearly signaled to the player. And, again, from a mechanical perspective if you can break a peace and declare war on the same turn, what's the point of the mechanic? Yeah, you will eventually get a mild opinion boost and a few events can trigger from being at peace but if anyone can still declare through peace then why have it as something that is different from truce?

But, yeah, lesson learned I guess. I'm never bothering to waste the civics and orders to get peace again unless I want an alliance. Just feels like a completely pointless and wasted mechanic at this point.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

Sure, in real life but OW is a game and it needs to function with the logic of a game.

It functions with the logic of this game.

If a game is going to act counter the way games in the genre generally function then it needs to be clearly signaled to the player that the game is going to things differently. If you are going to subvert expectations then that needs to be clearly signaled to the player.

Effects are usually listed somewhere. If there is no text that says "makes it impossible to declare war for X turns" then there is simply no such effect.

And, again, from a mechanical perspective if you can break a peace and declare war on the same turn, what's the point of the mechanic? Yeah, you will eventually get a mild opinion boost and a few events can trigger from being at peace but if anyone can still declare through peace then why have it as something that is different from truce?

I believe your units can move through their territory? They definitely can't in Truce. But I wouldn't know, it's only Truce or War for me. For obvious reasons: I also don't think the effort is worth it.

 

[InsidiousMage]

It functions with the logic of this game.

That's not the point. The point is that a game is not real life and things cannot be brought into the game from real life situations on a one-to-one basis, they have to be translated into to the logic of the game. The Greek city-states of the classical period are notorious for signing 30 year peace treaties that then only lasted five or six. They didn't, however, just break the treaty and declare war. They cited a specific clause in the treaty and accused the other side of not conforming to the treaty and then use that either a casus belli or declared the treaty null and void. This kind of logic can't be used in the game since peace treaties don't have clauses. Even Rome didn't just sail up sail to Carthage and declare war on them to start the Third Punic War, they sent an intentionally unreasonable set of demands to Carthage and then used Carthage's refusal of those demands as their casus belli. This can be, and is done, in the game. That's what I mean. Yes, people broken agreements all of the time, but they do so in specific ways and in specific circumstances that may or may not be applicable in any given game. Additionally, anyone who just breaks an agreement without just cause wouldn't find a lot of people willing to make agreements with them or suffer other consequences, which isn't really in the game.

Effects are usually listed somewhere. If there is no text that says "makes it impossible to declare war for X turns" then there is simply no such effect.

So, I actually looked in the game for this information and it actually leaves a lot to be desired. So, only national peace has an encyclopedia entry, truce and war only get tool tips.

Again, things here could be explained a bit better. First, truce saying "cannot attack each other without declaring war" is a lot more clarifying that peace saying "cannot attack each other" since that implies there is away to attack each without declaring war, which there isn't. Peace also implies you can go from peace to war but that's isn't true, you have break the peace first, which isn't explained.

I was already aware that you had to wait a couple of turns to make a truce after declaring war since I tried that before so I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that there would be a cooldown from breaking a peace to declaring war. There is at least one arbitrary limit are already in the game, no reason not to assume that there would be more.

And, as I thought, the penalties for breaking a peace barely qualify as penalties. The opinion hit is literally half of the positive opinion boost you get for a successful trade deal and two legitimacy is barely even noticeable by the mid-game.

So, improvements. First, I would have two kinds of peace - limited and eternal. Eternal peaces basically act the same way peaces do now, plus throw in a permanent trade deal in order to symbolize the lasting connections and good faith of both nations. Limited peaces would come in two varieties, 15 and 30 years, and having a previous limited peace being a prerequisite for establishing an eternal peace. At the end of a limited peace you get the options of renewing the peace, upgrading to either a 30 year or eternal peace, or letting the peace expire and returning to truce. The penalty for breaking a 15 year peace would be double what they currently are for breaking a peace, -80 opinion and then -10 legitimacy for breaking a 30 year peace and then -200 opinion and -15 legitimacy for breaking an eternal peace. I think adding something equivalent to grievances from Civ6 as a way to legitimately break a peace would also be a great addition to the game with these changes.