Let's talk Casus Belli

[dexters]

I'll start things off. This may belong in ideas and suggestions but it feels like more of a missing/incomplete feature in vanilla. And something of a no brainer to include in a patch rather than a feature overhaul.

Repeatedly breaking promises not to spy should be a casus bellI with warmonger penalty scaling down with each transgression.

Captured/killed spies should cause diplomatic incidents and be listed as a casual bellI. Starting with very high warmonger penalties and again scaling down as promises are broken and mire spies are killed and Captured.

I want to establish that captured/killed spies should be on a related but separate stream of casus bellI than broken promises.


So what are your thoughts on this. Any other casus bellI issues to discuss or add?

 

[esoba]

Also, someone attacking a City State you are allied with should allow a CB, but it doesn't until they are conquered. But I completely agree only if CB actually mattered. Sadly the decrease in warmongering penalties does little to actually matter. In the more modern eras it really doesn't matter, war will make almost every civ denounce you.

 

[Big J Money]

Is there a Casus Belli for having a different religion? This one could be a special Casus Belli that only appears on a policy card though.

 

[Larsenex]

There is Holy War in the civics but I did not see it as a reason when I wanted to start a war. Also I would like the penalty for going to war with reason to be better than 'Severe' which is fairly bad.

 

[Big J Money]

I think each CB has a different effect on the ultimate penalty. Some CB's are simply better than others. I think that's really cool actually. The problem right now is that for the most part, anything moderate or worse is effectively just as bad as Egregious. Not unless you really, really butter a civ up beforehand. There just needs to be some tweaking between the amount you should have to butter any given civ in comparison to the level of warmonger penalty you'll be okay to inflict.

 

[esoba]

Absolutely. There is no point to CBs when they really don't decrease the penalty. A justified war might have detractors from civs that like that civ, but for others that are neutral or like you it should be a boost or no negative.

 

[Big J Money]

So I'm going to take a lot of what I said back.

I no longer believe there is a DOT effect with Relationship values. That requires too much a leap of faith. There are other possibilities to explore, and there's no reason for me to continue believing -16 = -136.

That being said, the warmongering penalties may need some slight tweaking. I'm just no longer going to make any specific suggestions until we know more about Diplomatic transitions. Funnily enough, everyone who made a big deal about this ignored my thread to test and discuss it.

 

[ilker]

They should allow combining two or more casus belli to reduce the penalty slightly more if applicable.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/combinatory-casus-belli.601584/

Captured spies giving another casus belli is a good idea

 

[esoba]

So I'm going to take a lot of what I said back.

I no longer believe there is a DOT effect with Relationship values. That requires too much a leap of faith. There are other possibilities to explore, and there's no reason for me to continue believing -16 = -136.

That being said, the warmongering penalties may need some slight tweaking. I'm just no longer going to make any specific suggestions until we know more about Diplomatic transitions. Funnily enough, everyone who made a big deal about this ignored my thread to test and discuss it.

I've also been leaning to this belief as well. Now, I really want the ability to combine CBs or have much larger positive impacts for gifting things and the like, even if those things are more over time with a smaller initial boost.

 

[Bodin]

I would like to see additional reasons for going to war.
1. Culture - enemy has too much culture (in a culture victory game); "Your nation's immorality is corrupting my people."
2. Science - enemy has too much science (in a Scientific victory game); "Your scientific cures are worse than the dangers they combat."

** Also, I'd like to see the option to "interrogate" and/or execute enemy spies (also being a cause for war). (Spy might be able to update map for one turn, like troop placements, or reveal what tech an enemy has available - level of technological advancement, not the tech itself). While trade may request a spy back and certainly a nation may ransom a spy, I believe execution should be an option as well. Spies need to be included in CB (acts of spying as well as a nation's response of execution of said spy).

 

[Tlplw717]

I really like the idea of combining CBs. My first game (on a low difficulty) had me far outstrip the AI in tech, and I wanted to declare a Holy War anyway. Would it not be logical to have a combined Holy/Colonial War? Feel like we've seen that in history.

 

[Lord_Azazel]

2. Science - enemy has too much science (in a Scientific victory game); "Your scientific cures are worse than the dangers they combat."

Do I smell a Brotherhood of Steel roleplaying civilization?

 

[Lord_Azazel]

I haven't really inspected the casus belli side yet, is there a CB if someone has DOWed a friend of yours?
What about troops near borders?
And missile silos near you? This is a big one irl.
Settling near you?
Buying tiles near you?
Wonder production? Qin keeps poking me about this
Spreading their religion to you?
General warmongering?
General denouncing everything?
Refusing to trade?
Demanding stuff?
Building the Manhattan Project?

There are so many options

 

[Louis XXIV]

I would like to see additional reasons for going to war.
1. Culture - enemy has too much culture (in a culture victory game); "Your nation's immorality is corrupting my people."

When has anyone used this justification and not come off as a warmonger?

2. Science - enemy has too much science (in a Scientific victory game); "Your scientific cures are worse than the dangers they combat."

This one just breaks immersion. You might as well not even bother coming up with the quote. After all, it's not like you aren't pursuing the same science.

 

[dexters]

So this came up when I was posting in another thread.

Casus belli's problem is it relies entirely on scaling the warmonger penalty. And I don't even think the penalty numbers are a problem. I feel like they released half the system.
In anycase, needs to be bonuses as well as the warmonger penalty.

• Imagine a scenario where a Civ broke promises to 3 Civs. This should be reported as part of the intelligence gathering in the game from traders/embassies etc. (a diplomatic log is much needed)
• Say, you decide to go to war because of these broken promises (assuming they add in a casus belli for it)
• Civs that were on the same boat should like you more for it. The warmonger penalty could also be reduced or eliminated entirely, and a separate 'bonus' positive modifier added for 'standing up' to the 'lying SOB'

 

[Pheylan]

So this came up when I was posting in another thread.

Casus belli's problem is it relies entirely on scaling the warmonger penalty. And I don't even think the penalty numbers are a problem. I feel like they released half the system.
In anycase, needs to be bonuses as well as the warmonger penalty.

• Imagine a scenario where a Civ broke promises to 3 Civs. This should be reported as part of the intelligence gathering in the game from traders/embassies etc. (a diplomatic log is much needed)
• Say, you decide to go to war because of these broken promises (assuming they add in a casus belli for it)
• Civs that were on the same boat should like you more for it. The warmonger penalty could also be reduced or eliminated entirely, and a separate 'bonus' positive modifier added for 'standing up' to the 'lying SOB'

In addition to this it would be neat if certain leaders were willing to look the other way based on their own inclinations.