Must all wars still be warm?

[molst]

I've been longing for this since the nineties but never got it. The main question is:
Will it be possible to use arms not only for warfare, but to really control diplomacy?

More concretely:

Will the effect of placing considerable force at the borders of an opponent be logic diplomatic decisions in negotiations?

I mean, it should not just make the opponent angry, but it should make the opponent take smart decisions, probably still valuing good relations with you.

If this was true it would open up a whole new way to use weapons without having to consume armies to use them efficiently. You could use your troops over and over again, deployed at different places, to boost diplomacy in your direction.

Another way to put the question:

Must all wars still be warm? It should be pretty easy to make it possible to wage a cold war. And since a cold war can even more creepy than a warm one, I think it would be fantastic for the gameplay as a whole, opening up a whole new dimension in how to use weapons with a relatively small game development effort.

 

[AriochIV]

A "cold war" is really a by-product of the development of nuclear weapons, after which a "hot war" between major powers becomes essentially impossible (without destroying the world). Intimidation and war via proxies happened before this era, but not really to the same extent; usually, it was not long before the main parties came to blows.

Developing "cold war" mechanics might make sense for a modern period game, but since in Civilization the Atomic era is usually a short section near the end of the game, I'm not sure it would make sense to develop this mechanism in detail.

 

[Zaarin]

A "cold war" is really a by-product of the development of nuclear weapons, after which a "hot war" between major powers becomes essentially impossible (without destroying the world). Intimidation and war via proxies happened before this era, but not really to the same extent; usually, it was not long before the main parties came to blows.

Developing "cold war" mechanics might make sense for a modern period game, but since in Civilization the Atomic era is usually a short section near the end of the game, I'm not sure it would make sense to develop this mechanism in detail.

Agreed. Might make sense for a second expansion pack, though.

 

[dexters]

Agreed. Might make sense for a second expansion pack, though.

Ed did say there are other means to declare war in Civ6, so this is likely the cold war scenario some people are asking for.

This may also suggest smaller non-militaristic Civs could very well be able to engage in other forms of warfare to further their VC.

I think it could address the simple truth that in Civ games, it is often cheaper/easier to go to war and knock down your AI opponent than engage in a staring match with them while each of you pursue another VC. Even if you never end up conquering most of their cities, just going to war to divert resources away is often helpful.

 

[m15a]

In previous Civs, building up an army still has the effect of maintaining good relationships, since it discourages the AI from wanting to go to war with you. I can't remember how Civ V AI judges how strong your military is, but if it is based on what the AI can see, that's a sort of rough model of what you're suggesting.

 

[DCParry]

A couple things that might help this:

The whole respect/fear meter from BERT, you could be on terrible terms with another nation but your military makes it unlikely they will attack. The cold war aspect is sort of roleplayed here, but you could still participate in things that cheese your enemy off like buying off city states/killing city states, helping their other enemies and so on.

The other thing might be some sort of rivalry system (like Stellaris, which seems to be a slightly more nuanced denouncement system); have some benefit for declaring another nation your rival, stronger diplomatic repercussions (which would require a more nuanced diplomacy system).

 

[Haig]

Competing over city-states is a form of cold war in my opinion, you can feed Hanoi troops as it fights against America.

 

[dexters]

Competing over city-states is a form of cold war in my opinion, you can feed Hanoi troops as it fights against America.

Yes And though this is not a new tactic (my own machivellian doctrine for Civ3 prescribed generous gold subsidies to the enemy of the weaker protectorate civ), I do enjoy that in Civ5, the AI will actively call you out on your pledges to protect, will coup your city-states and really get in there and fight for it.

The city-state minor power rivalry between the great powers have always interested me. Here's to hoping we get more of it in Civ6.

 

[molst]

A "cold war" is really a by-product of the development of nuclear weapons, after which a "hot war" between major powers becomes essentially impossible (without destroying the world). Intimidation and war via proxies happened before this era, but not really to the same extent; usually, it was not long before the main parties came to blows.

Developing "cold war" mechanics might make sense for a modern period game, but since in Civilization the Atomic era is usually a short section near the end of the game, I'm not sure it would make sense to develop this mechanism in detail.

Ah, I think my title emphasized the cold war aspect of the feature a bit too much. What I'm out for is just that the diplomatic possibilities should adapt logically to where the weapons are placed on the map. It would open up for weapons pressure tactics, and the possibility to back up an alliance with real stuff (show me the weapons or I don't trust you) in any era, and a really nice integration of the map and the diplomacy parts of the game. Even a small addition in the right direction could make a huge improvement to gameplay.

 

[Blkbird]

A player (human or AI) who uses troops at the border to pressure an opponent diplomatically should be conceived as a bully and suffer long-term diplomatic penalty for it (as it happens in the real world), and there should be some defiant rulers with whom the tactic would backfire, resulting in wars that might have been avoided if they had been treated with more respect.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I wouldn't mind a DEFCON mechanic. It could be something like:
DEFCON 5: All military unit "sleep". (-50% strength, -50% maintenance cost)
DEFCON 4: Requires 3 turns. All conventional military units active (full strength, full maintenance)
DEFCON 3: Player selects targets for nuclear weapons.
DEFCON 2: Nuclear weapons are prepared. nuclear weapons appear on map. Requires 5 turns before defcon 1 can be initiated.
DEFCON 1: Requires 1 turn. "launch button" appears. nuclear weapons can be launched anytime to pre-selected targets.

 

[AriochIV]

Ah, I think my title emphasized the cold war aspect of the feature a bit too much. What I'm out for is just that the diplomatic possibilities should adapt logically to where the weapons are placed on the map. It would open up for weapons pressure tactics, and the possibility to back up an alliance with real stuff (show me the weapons or I don't trust you) in any era, and a really nice integration of the map and the diplomacy parts of the game. Even a small addition in the right direction could make a huge improvement to gameplay.

It would be nice to have a fear and respect kind of metric (though implemented better than in BERT), meaningful and useful alliances, and more useful ways to interact with and over city-states. In other words, it would be nice to have an actual diplomacy system instead of the luxury barter system that passes as a diplomacy system in Civ V.

 

[molst]

Yep, lots of interesting ideas here. Defcon and "meaningful alliances" could also be great improvements to diplomacy. Interesting to see what they'll finally come up with!

 

[bite]

I would like more way to mess with an opponent before declaring outright war, if the AI Could handle it of course

 

[stealth_nsk]

The problem with diplomacy is - you can't have all 3 of the following:
- Meaningful alliances (and other similar diplomacy features).
- Diplomacy based on fear and respect (trust, law and other drivers of real-world diplomacy).
- Multiplayer-full game.

1. If you have first 2, the diplomacy will not work in multiplayer.
2. If you have diplomacy based on fear and respect in MP-oriented game, you'll not go far behind basic trade.
3. If you need both meaningful alliances and multiplayer-full game, it needs to have some motivation behind the real-world, like happiness or gold penalties for breaking alliances with additional complexity bring by such systems.

All 3 variants are viable, depending on the dev team priorities.

 

[Lucius_]

I just would like to be able to attack an opponent without a formal war declaration. I'd like to be able to tell the AI, "No, do not settle a city near me." When they don't listen, I should be able to take the city and it be up to the AI to DW me or back down.

 

[Hail]

The problem with diplomacy is - you can't have all 3 of the following:
- Meaningful alliances (and other similar diplomacy features).
- Diplomacy based on fear and respect (trust, law and other drivers of real-world diplomacy).
- Multiplayer-full game.

1. If you have first 2, the diplomacy will not work in multiplayer.
2. If you have diplomacy based on fear and respect in MP-oriented game, you'll not go far behind basic trade.
3. If you need both meaningful alliances and multiplayer-full game, it needs to have some motivation behind the real-world, like happiness or gold penalties for breaking alliances with additional complexity bring by such systems.

All 3 variants are viable, depending on the dev team priorities.

attach fear & respect and diplo modifiers to the population. a player can declare war on an ally that his people like, but will face conquences.

 

[DioAurion]

I wouldn't mind a DEFCON mechanic..

That would actually make a pretty sweet system for civic balancing. More advanced diplomatic systems require a longer buildup to activate your military as you advance the cause to your parliament or direct democratic voters.

It would force warlord expansionist playstyle to adopt lesser economically beneficial civics as a balance if they want their military to stay in fighting shape at all times, plus give the weaker defending nation a chance to take the upper hand as their DEFCON level increases at a faster rate than the offensive side of the conflict.

 

[bison21]

What makes you think that all wars in Civ5 are hot?