Ideas borrowed from Paradox Games?

[Magil]

Didn't Civ IV already have something similar to lenses? I remember there being a religious overlay and similar options. It wasn't as in-depth as what I recall from CK2 of course, but it existed. It was nice for when you zoomed the map all the way out to the "globe" view.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Didn't Civ IV already have something similar to lenses? I remember there being a religious overlay and similar options. It wasn't as in-depth as what I recall from CK2 of course, but it existed. It was nice for when you zoomed the map all the way out to the "globe" view.

Sort of, but all sorts of games have overlays like that. I don't know about calling them "lenses" but I'm thinking specifically of all of the SimCity franchise. I'm sure there are more but I don't really play that many games TBH. I just am not sure any of these things are "borrowed" specifically from Paradox unless there is something I'm not seeing.

 

[Miravlix]

I'm not entirely sure civ needs a CB system, it seems to be a level of micro that really don't belong in it. Denounce-War vs Surprise War is perfect.

I can accept that the City State system of Civ V was broken, being able to friend 24 city states on a huge map, was beyond broken and it needs a more detailed micro system in VI.

But people wanting an UI to control where global amenities goes would ruin the game, the last thing we need is for Civ to become a Paradox game and that I say as a Paradox fan.

Civ V 2556 hours.
EUIV 1545 hours.

Every EUIV expansion revamp the game to the point it's radically new and it still can't compete with CIV.

 

[Browd]

Is that borrowing from Paradox, or from real life? Honest question, I have not seen how paradox (or civ for that matter) present it.

Casus belli as a diplomatic concept long predates Paradox games, and video and board games generally, that use that concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

 

[demidyad]

There *was* something like a 4000 BC to 2000 AD grand strategy Pdox game, Magna Mundi, but it was cancelled by Paradox before launch. The developers claimed the game was ready and they would go to court to be able to launch the game themselves, but I don't know how that ended.

I googled that out of interest, and wow, really fell down a rabbit hole. It ended when the lead developer was commited to a mental institution.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Casus belli as a diplomatic concept long predates Paradox games, and video and board games generally, that use that concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

Yeah I was more curious about how people were drawing the similarities, if the mechanics were THAT similar or not. Like you're saying just because they're using a "CB system" that doesn't mean they were taking that idea from Paradox (though I'm sure people there have probably played their games and gotten some ideas).

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The casus belli system fixes one aspect of the game

If you two civs go to war with two other civs, then they both take the same warmonger penalty and now become hated.

With casus belli, it just so happens that one of those civs actually is defending themselves, so the warmonger gets more penalised for being a warmonger than someone who had a valid reason to go to war.

I welcome our Casus-Belli overlords with open arms. It gives the game both a gameplay and realism based flavor to it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The casus belli system fixes one aspect of the game

If you two civs go to war with two other civs, then they both take the same warmonger penalty and now become hated.

With casus belli, it just so happens that one of those civs actually is defending themselves, so the warmonger gets more penalised for being a warmonger than someone who had a valid reason to go to war.

I welcome our Casus-Belli overlords with open arms. It gives the game both a gameplay and realism based flavor to it.

And let's me attack that Civ that keeps on sending those stupid prophets and missions into my nation (after I told them not to) without coming out looking like the bad guy. :0

 

[Sitalkas]

can someone please explain briefly how casus belli feature will work?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

And let's me attack that Civ that keeps on sending those stupid prophets and missions into my nation (after I told them not to) without coming out looking like the bad guy. :0

Exactly.

Damn Mayans with his infinite Prophet Spam, making me waste my hard earned faith points to station Inquisitors in every city.

I think if anything, there should be a 3-strike rule that you gain a Casus Belli if a civ ignores another civilizations request 3 times.

can someone please explain briefly how casus belli feature will work?

There's two kinds of wars, Justified (i.e Casus Belli) and Surprise.

Surprise wars hold a much higher value of warmonger penalties, and Justified Wars have a lower value of warmonger penalties when executed. But you need a "reason" to launch a Justified War. I'm not sure what examples they gave but it could be something along the lines "You've Denounced us", and then one side gains a Justified Reason for war, and can use that to launch an attack on another civilization.

 

[Miravlix]

Sound like the religious combat system will fix the religion spreading issue.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There's two kinds of wars, Justified (i.e Casus Belli) and Surprise.

There are at least 3 kinds of war - Surprise, Formal and Justified. Maybe even 4 - Surprise Unjustified, Formal Unjustified, Surprise Justified and Formal Justified

War becomes formal if you denounce civ and wait or if you're denounced. War becomes justified if you have Casus Belli.

 

[Vaclac]

I wish they would borrow the attrition mechanic from EU4. I think it would be a good solution to the 1UPT vs stack of doom debate. Could start the game with a supply limit of one unit per tile and if you end your turn with units than that on one tile, all units take damage. You could even make the amount of damage they take proportional to how many units over the limit end their turn on that tile. So it wouldn't be a hard limit that creates the traffic jam problems of 1UPT but it would still make stacks of doom a bad strategy. You could also increase the supply limit over time with technology so that as empires have enough production to create more units, armies can handle larger numbers of units too.

 

[Olleus]

I don't think we need a EU4 level of detail in casus belli (different sorts which reduce the cost and warmonger penalty for different types of war goals). But a justified vs unjustified war is a good thing, been desperately needed for a long time. If you are attacking to expand your lands or wipe out a neighbour, you should be hated for it. If you are attacking to liberate a civ/city-state, to support an ally or the life, you should only be viewed with - at worse - suspicion by others (and depending on how much land you take of course)

 

[Olleus]

I wish they would borrow the attrition mechanic from EU4. I think it would be a good solution to the 1UPT vs stack of doom debate. Could start the game with a supply limit of one unit per tile and if you end your turn with units than that on one tile, all units take damage. You could even make the amount of damage they take proportional to how many units over the limit end their turn on that tile. So it wouldn't be a hard limit that creates the traffic jam problems of 1UPT but it would still make stacks of doom a bad strategy. You could also increase the supply limit over time with technology so that as empires have enough production to create more units, armies can handle larger numbers of units too.

I think I made a mod that did that for Civ4. Each unit needed one food. If you had more units than the tile could produce food (including improvements) then every unit on that tile would suffer an attrition penalty proportional to the food that was lacking. Can't remember how I dealt with city tiles exactly. Forced armies to be spread out, but if you were concentrating an attack it was sometimes worth paying attrition for one year in order to have enough bang in one place. Also favoured attacks in highly fertile river valleys over barren deserts, which was good.

Problem with it was a) The AI was truly hopeless with it and b) it was kind of boring to work with, maybe because there were too many units in Civ4 to limit it to between 1 and 4 per tile. Either way, it wasn't fun and I dropped it quickly.

 

[Vaclac]

I think I made a mod that did that for Civ4. Each unit needed one food. If you had more units than the tile could produce food (including improvements) then every unit on that tile would suffer an attrition penalty proportional to the food that was lacking. Can't remember how I dealt with city tiles exactly. Forced armies to be spread out, but if you were concentrating an attack it was sometimes worth paying attrition for one year in order to have enough bang in one place. Also favoured attacks in highly fertile river valleys over barren deserts, which was good.

Problem with it was a) The AI was truly hopeless with it and b) it was kind of boring to work with, maybe because there were too many units in Civ4 to limit it to between 1 and 4 per tile. Either way, it wasn't fun and I dropped it quickly.

Interesting. Making it depend on the food would be an interesting variation, although it probably makes the AI even more incompetent than they would be at a simple limit per tile. I would hope if the dev team was programming the AI from scratch under such a system they could make them competent at it, but I guess experience with CivV AI with 1UPT suggests they wouldn't be.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

There are at least 3 kinds of war - Surprise, Formal and Justified. Maybe even 4 - Surprise Unjustified, Formal Unjustified, Surprise Justified and Formal Justified

War becomes formal if you denounce civ and wait or if you're denounced. War becomes justified if you have Casus Belli.

Wait theres a Formal war too? I thought it was just the two kind and that Denoucnement counts as one of the Casus Belli.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Wait theres a Formal war too? I thought it was just the two kind and that Denoucnement counts as one of the Casus Belli.

I thought that too, but diplomacy video specifically states Casus Belli is unlocked at Renaissance, while we've seen denunciations and formal wars much earlier.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I thought that too, but diplomacy video specifically states Casus Belli is unlocked at Renaissance, while we've seen denunciations and formal wars much earlier.

As I understand there are 3 war types, surprise war (biggest diplo hit), formal war (med diplo hit), and CB war (low-no diplo hit).
The penalties of which come in the form of preparedness, where a surprise war is just that a surprise, a formal war required denouncing beforehand, and CB (likely) requires denouncing and ignoring the denouncing action.

And then all the agendas that can revolve around them.

 

[Sitalkas]

Exactly.

Damn Mayans with his infinite Prophet Spam, making me waste my hard earned faith points to station Inquisitors in every city.

I think if anything, there should be a 3-strike rule that you gain a Casus Belli if a civ ignores another civilizations request 3 times.



There's two kinds of wars, Justified (i.e Casus Belli) and Surprise.

Surprise wars hold a much higher value of warmonger penalties, and Justified Wars have a lower value of warmonger penalties when executed. But you need a "reason" to launch a Justified War. I'm not sure what examples they gave but it could be something along the lines "You've Denounced us", and then one side gains a Justified Reason for war, and can use that to launch an attack on another civilization.

Ah, OK thanks for your reply!

Is religious war justified? You know, crusades etc