Initiating War

[Dida]

Tang dynasty China also fought wars with the Arabs, who are at least 1000 miles to the west of China, across deserts and other rough terrains. Putting a border requirement for war is complete unrealistic, and will restrict some strategies in game.
Why an AI declare war and doesn't have the ability to carry it out does it have impact on the game? yes it doesn. First of all, it worsens the relationship between you and the AI. Secondly, it cuts any trade or communication that goes through their land, and they might be able to persuate someone who is closer to you to enjoy the war against you.

 

[sealman]

Call me a Belgian because I just waffled over to the other side.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think this is really an issue of the AI picking and fighting wars appropriately. It seems they often do not consider logistical or strategic planning when declaring war. If that is fixed, no need for a stupid limiter.

 

[GeneralZed]

@ Heat Miser

Well, ya cant always find a solution without getting all the pros and cons in the same post . But not every nation was against or with the germans in both wars. There were like more than 100 nations back then and not every nation was active in the wars.

Anyway, its very annoying when all other nations declare war against you and there is almost no other nation allied with me.

 

[sealman]

I think this is really an issue of the AI picking and fighting wars appropriately. It seems they often do not consider logistical or strategic planning when declaring war. If that is fixed, no need for a stupid limiter.

That is probably my main issue, and something that I have brought up in some long dead and buried threads. The AI needs to be logical in its war decisions. Case in point:

I am a good sized empire that surrounds the Greeks and their 3 cities. The Greeks and the Sealonians have had great realations over the years. No wars with the Sealonians defending Greeks when threatened. Sealonian Furs and Spices are flowing into Greece and well below market value and some technical breakthroughs are shared, eventually. Diplomatic relations are "Gracious".

Then one day, the Sealonians find themselves fighting a "cold war" (Babs and Seals no where near eachother and will never meet on the battlefield) with the hated Babylonians when out of the blue, Greece signs a Military alliance with Babylon against the Sealonian people.

Why? while many Greeks may harbor a deep seeded resentment for what the Sealonians have, they got to know that they would not be able to win the war because the Babs will not be able to help. Sure enough, Sealonian troops march into their former friends land and soon the "smelly fish banner" is flying over all the Greek cities.

This is a senario that happens all too often in my games. A civ should never declare war on another when the chances for winning are well close to zero.

 

[Heat Miser]

It is true that long distance wars have occured throughout history, but these wars were generally over tangible reasons (trade, resources), but the AI seems to focus more on power (ie. if your civ is fairly ahead of the rest it will gang up on you). While this might be partially true in the modern era (trade and resources are still the greatest factor), I do not believe this would be true in the earlier eras. I think that the easiest fix would be increasing neutrality proportional with distance unless there are mitigating circumstances (scarcity of resources, or open hostility (your warrior takes out their scout)). As the ease of communication increases with technology, the ratio of neutrality to distance could lessen, until the modern era where it disappears.

@ GeneralZed: As an aside, WWII affected every continent except Antartica. Brazil and several other South American nations were on the side of the allies and were vital in the Battle of the Atlantic. Also remember that Germany was not alone. There were Japan, Italy, Romania, Hungary and some Middle-Eastern Potentates. I believe the flaw in the AI is that it will gang up on you due to your Power (generally read as money or tech advancements), however civ's that should align with you due to cultural links or past performance will not. This flaw should be fixed.

 

[Dida]

This problem you stated will not be fixed by imposing limit on who the AI can declare war on. It can only be fixed if Firaxis invest enough time and effort into programming a good AI. I seriously hope that they will devote more than 1 guy to the AI aspect of the game. True it is the 3D graphics and some other fancy features that will sell the game,but without a good AI, the game ultimiately fails to be a fun. Remember, Civ is a turned based game, and my experience is, majority of play-time on a civ game is done in solo rather than multiplay.

 

[EquinoxOmega]

yes, I think it's a good idea, but maybe there should be the possiblity to turn on/off this mode while starting a game.

 

[sealman]

yes, I think it's a good idea, but maybe there should be the possiblity to turn on/off this mode while starting a game.

For the most part, I think that feature that can be turned on or off is a feature that need not be implemented.

 

[rhialto]

There7s just too many historical counter-examples to consider this a good idea. I can add Spain vs Aztecs to the list. And just about every European colonization attempt would have started out as a counter-example too.

 

[sealman]

There7s just too many historical counter-examples to consider this a good idea. I can add Spain vs Aztecs to the list. And just about every European colonization attempt would have started out as a counter-example too.

I don't know if I would use the colonizing of the New World as a true historical example against. The European powers did not just show up one day and declare war. They established their colonies and then expanded out and into the native peoples.

 

[rhialto]

Yes, teh European powers did establish their colonies. But where do you think they established those colonies? That wasn't uninhabited land waiting for some humans to live there. In almost every case, tribes, nations and even empires were already there. It was a conquest almost from the start.

 

[Craterus22]

Thanks to everyone for voting and discussing this issue. I apologize for not not posting earlier - real life.

The idea posted was a game mechanic solution for an annoying problem in the game. Is it realistic? Maybe not, but then again are archer units offensive or defensive units? Are spearmen offensive or defensive?

Also, for those that don't believe it is realistic to require borders... perhaps we could have a Wonder that would allow wars without border nearness/touching? What could we call that (small? resource req?)wonder?

In the ancient world perhaps we could call it The Epic of Alexander, perhaps in the middle ages we could call it The Crusades? Perhaps in the industrial age (if the rule went this far) we could call it The League of Nations? Or maybe LoN could be the great wonder that gives everyone the ability to declare war without regard to border issues...

I think this is really an issue of the AI picking and fighting wars appropriately. It seems they often do not consider logistical or strategic planning when declaring war. If that is fixed, no need for a stupid limiter.

Yes - I agree. I have absolutely no faith in firaxis's ability to produce an AI that could plan and fight wars effectively on an even basis. I think this game rule could help force the AI to pick a nearby civ to fight. Or it would create REAL miltary alliances were BOTH civs have a reason to fight.

One civ is being invaded on the west border by a neighbor who wants thier iron. The wronged party creates a military alliance with passage rights to a neighbor on the eastern border. They fight off the invasion and each allie gets an invader civ city. The eastern ally soon loses its isolated conquered city to culture flip.

I was trying to come up with a game mechanic that would help solve the declaration of war diarea that occurs in nearly every game I play.

ps-I would also like the AI to recognize my borders and pay for passage, but thats another subject.

ps2- I will make an attempt to reply to some other posts

 

[Dida]

If a distant civ declare war on me, than he did. So what? I don't get annoyed by that. And I do see how imposing a limit on declaration of war would enhance the AI performance or game feature at all.

 

[Craterus22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization
Colonization (or colonisation) is the act where life forms move into a distant area where their kind is sparse or not yet existing at all and set up new settlements in the area.

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

And just about every European colonization attempt would have started out as a counter-example too.

I disagree - I think most colonies were started in sparsly populated areas and...

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

Native tribes were usually at war with one another and some of them were only too willing to form alliances with the Spanish in order to defeat powerful enemies, such as the Aztecs or Incas

And thus the war by proxy rule is covered.

I don't know if I would use the colonizing of the New World as a true historical example against. The European powers did not just show up one day and declare war. They established their colonies and then expanded out and into the native peoples.

I agree.

BTW - sealman, great description of almost every war in civ3. Another BTW - what side are you on exactly you waffled at one point and i am unclear on your current status.

For the most part, I think that feature that can be turned on or off is a feature that need not be implemented.

I disagree - I think nearly every rule should be optionable... if there is scoring for HOF involved and a point multiplier for all the harder rule options.

It is true that long distance wars have occured throughout history, but these wars were generally over tangible reasons

I agree Heat Mizer - good points. Its really not my point that the rule I am suggesting is realistic or not (though I think it is more often realistic than not by far), its more about making a better more interesting game.

The Chinese and Huns were separated by deserts and dozens of small countries, and yet the Chinese destroyed the Huns. Craterus22's idea would place an un-needed restriction on gameplay, which is both no fun, and a gross violation of historical accuracy.

dida - potentially good example (i think-still reading up on it) of an early war without border issue. I don't agree with your conclusion that it would not be fun and that it is a gross violation though...

Could some of those states that refused an alliance be the ones referenced below?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_dynasty
Non-Chinese states were allowed to remain autonomous in exchange for symbolic acceptance of Han overlordship

Could they have been defacto subjecct states that were allowed to remain "autonomous" until it was deemed inconvenient?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars
Haven't found that particular war on the list at wiki -


Found this quote after a google search though:
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300030544&messageID=300438975&start=15

First of all, the Han Dynasty ruled China while Rome was in power. Around 100 BC, Emperor Wu Di "the martial emperor" launch a massive campaign to rid China's northern borders of Hsuing-nu or the Huns. Under Wu Di, China field a very large highly disciplined professional army.

Huns on the border or not? Ouch... your making me research and learn - darn you all to heck!

As a game mechanic - I think border touching or nearness could make the early game better on a number of fronts - JMHO. Thanks to everyone for the discussion.

 

[dh_epic]

Notice that it was the Europeans who called it colonization -- the act of moving into sparsely, unpopulated land.

That would be like letting the guy who stole your stereo tell everyone "it was finding -- the act of coming upon or obtaining something by accident".

The winners write the history, right?

It's probably more apt to look at this one, a term used by historians. (As opposed to a simple verb used by the colonizers themselves.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

Not that I'm judging whether it was good or bad or trying to lay a guilt trip on Europeans. I'm just saying -- let's tell it like it is.

 

[Dida]

At the time of Wu Di, the Huns was indeed residing near China's Northwest border. However, as the Huns suffered massive defeated by the said military compaign launched by Wu Di, they migrated westwards, the land they formally control fell into the hand of tribes who were previously powerless. These tribes set up their own rules, and were independent, largely of either the Huns or the Chinese. China launched further compaign, which drove the Huns further west. Historians believe they were driven into Europe and quickened the demise of the Roman Empire. Some believe that the residents of Hungary was decedents of the Huns.

 

[Dida]

Tang dynasty China fought a war with the expanding Arabian Empire, in modern day central asia, far away from what is traditionally considered chinese domain. It is by this war, that the art of paper making passed from some captured chinese craftman to the Arabs, and eventually to Europe. So wars between two countries that do not touch each other do happen in ancient/middle age, and can sometimes have far reaching consquence.

 

[Justy]

I had an initial inclination to vote yes on this, but I switched to no. I agree that a better AI with an expanded definition of war and warfare would cut down on all the stupid nuisance wars that occur. I don't have a problem with two civs on different parts of the globe hating each other, its just the high amount of these spats that occur.

In the game I'm playing now the Germans attacked the Russians in one those pigpile campaigns where everybody beats on the collapsing civ. The Germans sent a huge army of knights across the pangea to join in on the fun. Subsequently the English and Americans attacked undefended German homeland wiping it off the map.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I only just read your post about the Greeks, Sealman, and I have to say that I have had similar difficulties in some of my games. For instance, I was playing the AoD scenario-as the English-and the Iriquois joined forces with the French to go to war with me-even though I was sharing a few of my less potent techs with them, and had point-blank refused to violate there territory. Of course, like your situation, the French could not offer any REAL assistance to their Iroquois 'friends' (as they were repelling ME at the time !) and, needless to say, the Iroquois ceased to exist soon after that-and this left the French even more open to my forces, and I drove them completely from the North American continent (with Dutch help, of course!)
Anyway, back O/T now. The point is that as Sealman said, a nation should only go to war with you if (a) it has sufficient grievances and/or inducements/threats to do so and (b) has a half-way decent chance of victory! I don't know if any computer experts can offer insight, but is there any kind of decent algorithm which could be written to make an AI properly consider ALL these factors (and weight them properly). In fact, I wouldn't even mind if such an algorithm was applied to the people of my own civ-to make it that if you do enter a hopeless war for no good reason, that your people will become quite angry with you (increased War Weariness, perhaps).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.