Joint Wars are obnoxious

[Jigglewiggle]

The AI is constantly declaring joint wars against me on Giant+ size maps. That would be fine if it seemed to have some reason behind it, but frequently it's with people I've just met or am even friendly with. Have joint wars always counted as formal wars rather than surprise wars when declared entirely unprovoked? Regardless, it seems a little immersion breaking that someone I was friends with ten turns ago has joined with a newly met AI on the other side of the world to declare war with me without having denounced or even dropped in friendliness beforehand. Why is there no denouncement requirement for at least one offending party?

 

[Bitterman]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-double-attacks.630904/

This has been widely discussed. Some people do think that is working as intended.

 

[Jigglewiggle]

Ahh, pardon the repeated post then! Checked for a thread but must have missed that. Thanks

 

[iammaxhailme]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-double-attacks.630904/

This has been widely discussed. Some people do think that is working as intended.

Some people do, but most don't. it seems

 

[Jigglewiggle]

I guess I don't see how it's fair that it would bypass all other conditions for wars. Like, there's maybe 1 out of 5 wars that'll be better served to use an actual CB instead of just going joint war at that point.

 

[MaryKB]

One thing I do is try to keep as many neighbors as at least "Friends", so they can't declare a war, even a joint war.

Sometimes in the real world strange wars happen! In world war 2, Germany and Russia did a joint war on Poland, then not long later Germany declared war on Russia. Then England, the United States, and Russia were all friends fighting together, but almost went to war right after. Politics and diplomacy can swing very quickly!

I don't mind it terribly, it seems easy enough to work around, and also makes it very likely you can get a friend to go to do a joint war with someone else. Even if they don't really help it at least helps warmongering.

 

[Disgustipated]

Sometimes in the real world strange wars happen! In world war 2, Germany and Russia did a joint war on Poland, then not long later Germany declared war on Russia. Then England, the United States, and Russia were all friends fighting together, but almost went to war right after. Politics and diplomacy can swing very quickly!

Or think Italy in WW1 who technically did have an alliance (Triple Alliance) but found a way around that for their own ambitions.

I don't mind joint wars so much, but I still would like a requirement of douncement first.

 

[Kurnn]

I don't understand your question. When you declare war on another nation, don't you seek allies for it?

Joint wars are way more common then a single nation going against another. If anything, Civ 6 should make it so joint wars could include more then just 2 civs.
No civ has to agree to go to war! But civ 6 does have a lot of different details which matters for each Civ vs others, so make friends, who will not attack you. Keep a decent military, which deter any civ to attack you, use spies to see what X civ is up to, and check their gossips along with your info on them.

Also, if you are in danger of getting attacked by 2 nations, you could attack one of them first, and bring the other as joint war with you.....if they are open for it.

 

[agonistes]

I don't understand your question. When you declare war on another nation, don't you seek allies for it?

Joint wars are way more common then a single nation going against another. If anything, Civ 6 should make it so joint wars could include more then just 2 civs.
No civ has to agree to go to war! But civ 6 does have a lot of different details which matters for each Civ vs others, so make friends, who will not attack you. Keep a decent military, which deter any civ to attack you, use spies to see what X civ is up to, and check their gossips along with your info on them.

Also, if you are in danger of getting attacked by 2 nations, you could attack one of them first, and bring the other as joint war with you.....if they are open for it.

Yea, I don't mind the joint wars so much, and I agree fully about the desire to see options for larger alliances than just 2. I'd also like to be able to form an alliance after a war has started. It doesn't make sense that someone can dow on me (or I dow on someone), but I can't invite a third party to join after the war has started.

I also fail to see why a joint war has less of a warmonger penalty than a regular surprise war.

 

[eleven11]

They should give more options in late game to deal punitive measures to civilizations. Such as joint economic embargoes, sanctions, terrorism, proxy war, etc. The bottom line is that wars IRL usually have an escalation path.. and that's what's missing (or just hidden) in my opinion.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

They should give more options in late game to deal punitive measures to civilizations. Such as joint economic embargoes, sanctions, etc. The bottom line is that wars IRL usually have an escalation path.. and that's what's missing (or just hidden) in my opinion.

Completely agree. I would love to see non-military options for punishing a civ like trade embargoes and such. There could be an option to remove your embassy (with some minor effect to the other civ like losing a level of visibility) and then stronger options like closing your border preventing trade, up to more severe options like economic sanctions that would remove gold from the other civ. And yes, there needs to be a progression towards war. One thing I liked about Beyond Earth: Rising Tide was how your diplomatic relationship could be upgraded or downgraded. It gave that sense of progression towards war. For example, when you were cooperating but then get downgraded to sanctionned, you knew war was coming. Right now, in civ6, war seems too arbitrary. It feels like the game just rolls an invisible dice every 30 turns to determine who will declare war on you this time. You can be neutral or friendly and then all of a sudden, a civ will DoW you, sometimes in packs. Then they make peace and 30 turns later, it's a different batch of civs that joint DoW you.

 

[Zaarin]

The idea of joint wars makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that A) the rest of the world suddenly doesn't care about the warmongering because they brought a buddy; B) the buddy they brought may well be your buddy. If joint wars worked the same as any other war (requiring both parties to meet the requirements of any CB or else it's a surprise war) and the AI took its relationship with the target into account, joint wars would feel less broken.

One thing I do is try to keep as many neighbors as at least "Friends", so they can't declare a war, even a joint war.

Sometimes in the real world strange wars happen! In world war 2, Germany and Russia did a joint war on Poland, then not long later Germany declared war on Russia. Then England, the United States, and Russia were all friends fighting together, but almost went to war right after. Politics and diplomacy can swing very quickly!

I don't mind it terribly, it seems easy enough to work around, and also makes it very likely you can get a friend to go to do a joint war with someone else. Even if they don't really help it at least helps warmongering.

That does actually sound like my current game. I had a good relationship with Mongolia but not China when Qin and Genghis declared a joint war against me. (I wasn't worried about Qin, who was far away, but being Genghis' neighbor is rather frightening...) Five turns after we made peace (on rather favorable terms to myself), Genghis declared friendship with me and we now have an economic alliance. I think I'm getting whiplash...

 

[Victoria]

People complain more often than praise. The fact many people are saying they do not mind is at least some solidarity to the fact that it is more about cosmetic 'feeling' that any damage to the game. This is my argument, there is so much unreal in the game and looking under the hood of joint wars they are not as simple as that

dropped in friendliness beforehand.

Well as @MaryKB implies, there is a different between someone acting friendly to you and declaring friendship. There is this occaisional chat about wishing they had a backstabbing leader back that you could not trust.... thats just what "friendly" and joint wars often are

Why is there no denouncement requirement for at least one offending party?

Yes, this is the killer, I see absolutely no issue with someone who has denounced you going in a joint war as formal but the partner should be surprise or say something like the good old "gimme 10 turns to prepare" including a denouncement at 5 turns. However I also would point out that many but not all joint wars have a denounced player already involved, you are aware at least one civ out there could surprise you and I quite like the backstabbing bit personally... they are a backstabbing SOB... just like most of you.

if it seemed to have some reason behind it

Well yes, the logs do seem to say there is normally ... but not always. It is important to point out that people have complained about a lot of things in the past but when things have been discovered about how they work ... or the mechanic has been changed people suddenly realize things work the way they did for a reason. While the code remains hidden we will not know for sure.

when declared entirely unprovoked?

Yeah right, just being in the target land of one party or having gone to war with one of their friends or not sent them a delegation may be good enough. Why not also to do with agendas or any other reason, even if purely for Mayhem, its a reason and a fairly good one.

This has been widely discussed. Some people do think that is working as intended.

Sure, I do... I also said I love it and use it, it makes the game more interesting... I also get miffed at times when exploring a new continent, bumping into 2 new civs, sending envoys and making deals and then bam, joint war against you..... I looked at this over the weekend from a game I had, neither seemed to have much reason to joint war me but was clear was they had been beating each other up for a while and it did seem like they just wanted to make friends. I agree in these cases its a bit annoying, I lost all that work and neither had a border anywhere near me. So some proximity and surprise missing but in general that's evened out by the pleasure I get out of using it. Just do not tell me joint wars did not happen, that would be sad to hear someone say.

What annoys me is the vitriol people have to add into a thread over such an issue, its just not needed and you lost your argument in my eyes because of the subjectivity displayed.

 

[King of Prussia]

I like the idea of Joint wars being in the game, but their current execution is something i am not happy with.

AI quite often don't bother to attack you after they declare. They just sit there until peace can be made, then give you a bunch of money. Setting aside the AI's mediocre combat abilities(some small fixes would go a long ways in helping), i would prefer they actually try and do something when they attack me. I would prefer they actually have troops nearby as well to do the attack. I would prefer if they were either neighbors or had some access to get to me before they accepted. i think i remember reading here as well that they do not consider military strength before accepting, which sounds just meh to me.

to me, being attacked by 2 civs or more should feel threatening. instead, i just say ok, thanks for the free money in 10 turns.

nerfing costs of troops so the AI can/has more troops would probably help as well.

 

[Karpius]

... they are a backstabbing SOB... just like most of you.

So very true! Nobody hates a backstabbing SOB more than another backstabbing SOB!

What annoys me is the vitriol people have to add into a thread over such an issue, its just not needed and you lost your argument in my eyes because of the subjectivity displayed.

Nothing kills reasonable civili discourse quicker than a dose of vitriol.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Why is there no denouncement requirement for at least one offending party?

That brings up another issue. Most CB (especially Protectorate War) are worthless without having to denounce and wait. For the most part this is a waste of time and you're just better off doing a joint war.

I think Joint War should indeed have at least 1 denouncement. And perhaps they should consider getting rid of the 5 turn wait for everything else besides formal war.

 

[agonistes]

People complain more often than praise. The fact many people are saying they do not mind is at least some solidarity to the fact that it is more about cosmetic 'feeling' that any damage to the game. This is my argument, there is so much unreal in the game and looking under the hood of joint wars they are not as simple as that

Well as @MaryKB implies, there is a different between someone acting friendly to you and declaring friendship. There is this occaisional chat about wishing they had a backstabbing leader back that you could not trust.... thats just what "friendly" and joint wars often are

Yes, this is the killer, I see absolutely no issue with someone who has denounced you going in a joint war as formal but the partner should be surprise or say something like the good old "gimme 10 turns to prepare" including a denouncement at 5 turns. However I also would point out that many but not all joint wars have a denounced player already involved, you are aware at least one civ out there could surprise you and I quite like the backstabbing bit personally... they are a backstabbing SOB... just like most of you.

Well yes, the logs do seem to say there is normally ... but not always. It is important to point out that people have complained about a lot of things in the past but when things have been discovered about how they work ... or the mechanic has been changed people suddenly realize things work the way they did for a reason. While the code remains hidden we will not know for sure.

Yeah right, just being in the target land of one party or having gone to war with one of their friends or not sent them a delegation may be good enough. Why not also to do with agendas or any other reason, even if purely for Mayhem, its a reason and a fairly good one.

Sure, I do... I also said I love it and use it, it makes the game more interesting... I also get miffed at times when exploring a new continent, bumping into 2 new civs, sending envoys and making deals and then bam, joint war against you..... I looked at this over the weekend from a game I had, neither seemed to have much reason to joint war me but was clear was they had been beating each other up for a while and it did seem like they just wanted to make friends. I agree in these cases its a bit annoying, I lost all that work and neither had a border anywhere near me. So some proximity and surprise missing but in general that's evened out by the pleasure I get out of using it. Just do not tell me joint wars did not happen, that would be sad to hear someone say.

What annoys me is the vitriol people have to add into a thread over such an issue, its just not needed and you lost your argument in my eyes because of the subjectivity displayed.

I have no problem with no denouncement first. I just think they should be treated as a surprise war if no denouncement is made. Just getting someone to join you makes it formal? That turns the whole formal/surprise thing on its head. They tried so hard to have warmongering penalties make sense, and then turn it all on its head with joint wars.

And, again, making a war joint after a dow would be sweet, and larger teams would be great too. 20 guys coming at me in a joint war? Huzzah!

I believe Ed clearly stated that the ai has options the player doesn't for gameplay purposes. Personally, I'm more of a 'if the ai can do it, we should be able to do it, and vice versa' kinda guy. Regardless, though, what this means is that some ideas are going to remain a bit flopsy because the devs think they add to the gameplay. Please see: "move thy troops or irk me."

On a kind of side note, I've been able to dof ai's lately without having green faces with them. Sometimes a turn after I meet them. Like everyone has become Gilgamesh.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yeah I think Joint Wars should require denouncement, but make it 1 or 2 turns in advance. I'm leaning more towards 1 turn.

 

[legalizefreedom]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't joint war the only way to bribe an AI into war in VI? Or can you not add anything else to the deal? (if you can't tell, I don't dip that cheese)

Joint war should work either way. Surprise if no denouncement + turns or formal if so. AI agrees to this way too easy at any rate.

 

[Victoria]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't joint war the only way to bribe an AI into war in VI?.

Correct, in fact it is the war bribe but now you have to be part of it rather than getting others to