Negative effects of war

[Civ_Rocks!]

I'm still getting used to Civ5, but one thing I've noticed that is quite different to me is the way war is treated. It almost appears that there are no negative effects to war at all in any circumstance. Granted, going through "enemy" territory can be perilous during war, but other then that am I missing something?

Does war increase some costs or make other civs like me less or cause unhappiness?

In other words, if another civ declares war on me, and I win whatever battle - they then offer a peace treaty. Do I have any reason why I should take it rather then just leave them on the back burner so I wont suffer diplo penalties for declaring war on them later?

 

[I_qua_I]

There aren't any that I'm aware of. I think I would like to see a continuous reduction of happiness the longer a war drags on. This would encourage players to think more about how to best carry out their military campaigns and deter those wacky scenarios where a civ who's had all of it's units slaughtered 10 times over the course of a billion years still gives you the "Tired of battle?" line every time you ask for peace.

And welcome to the forums!

 

[oldskald]

War weariness was a useful feature in this previous iteration. A further extra that could be added quite easily would be to increase unit maintenance costs in war time.

 

[JohnnyW]

Yeah, there's no penalty for being at war. Why would there be, this is a wargame afterall.

 

[Zechnophobe]

They have added a new 'war tedium' rating. It is a metarating that effects the player himself. As you wage war, you increasingly become bored with it, and moving of huge number of things small distances. As it gets higher, the odds of you uninstalling also increases. If you manage to finish the war before this point, your war tedium rating will slowly decrease. WARNING unlike some effects, this carries over between games.

 

[aatami]

What are you talking about? Yes, there is negative effects of war, other than having to spend a lot of time training an army.
It damages diplomatic relations with other civs if you like war too much.

 

[Luckystrike77]

The happiness system. A captured city requires a courthouse to be built to act normal again and the unhapiness effects all your empire. Too many cities also punishes how often you get social policies and golden ages (here also the happiness plays a role). Army upkeep also plays a lot larger role now in Civ5, a big army is really expensive.

Some indirect sidenotes: ...and as always: a long stalemate war vs a good opponent causes you economy to hurt trough blocades and pillaging, and trough losing alot of troops with now real gain. It also makes you invest in alot in troops and war tech instead of things improving city efficiency in production, economy, research and culture.

I avoid wars, there are so many more possibilities for smaller empires now, if small means few cities but huge populations. It makes you able to build all national wonders really quick, it makes you able to get alot of social policies, and it makes it very profitable to build most buildings in every city, making the cities real powerhouses. The City state consept also benefits few city empires alot trough alliances with cultural citystates, booming few city empires extra much on the social policies three.

 

[JohnnyW]

What are you talking about? Yes, there is negative effects of war, other than having to spend a lot of time training an army.
It damages diplomatic relations with other civs if you like war too much.

From what I gather that is a result of taking cities, not actually being at war. Therefore war without taking cities causes no negative effects. Example: I'll sit and bombard the idiotic AI to gain xp from them while they waste their shields while getting no negative relations with other AI.

The happiness system. A captured city requires a courthouse to be built to act normal again and the unhapiness effects all your empire. Too many cities also punishes how often you get social policies and golden ages (here also the happiness plays a role). Army upkeep also plays a lot larger role now in Civ5, a big army is really expensive.

Again, this is based on capturing cities, not the actual war itself. Yes, conquering AI cities is easy, but it is not the only way to hold war. Upkeep of units exists whether you're at war or peace....that is not a valid argument.

Some indirect sidenotes: ...and as always: a long stalemate war vs a good opponent causes you economy to hurt trough blocades and pillaging, and trough losing alot of troops with now real gain. It also makes you invest in alot in troops and war tech instead of things improving city efficiency in production, economy, research and culture.

These are not effects of war. These are effects of the AI entering and pillaging your land, both of which you can usually prevent. Being at war has no economic effects on its own, and I will generally stay at war once I'm declared on so the AI spends hammers on units and not buildings and so I get more xp. Where is the negative effect?

I avoid wars, there are so many more possibilities for smaller empires now, if small means few cities but huge populations. It makes you able to build all national wonders really quick, it makes you able to get alot of social policies, and it makes it very profitable to build most buildings in every city, making the cities real powerhouses. The City state consept also benefits few city empires alot trough alliances with cultural citystates, booming few city empires extra much on the social policies three.

This has nothing to do with whether war has negative effects or not. The simple fact is that war in Civ5 has no negatives and only positives for exploiting AI incompetence.

Obviously you can lose units and cities in war, but this is a result of poor defense and tactical play moreso than a negative effect of war. Here is a mental excersize for you:

Let's say you're on an Archipelago map and happen to see Bismark across the way after building your first fishing boat. He immediately hates you and declares war shortly after. Because the AI is incompetent at naval warfare he almost never sends units towards you, or if he does your caravel(s) take them out with ease. Let's say this war continues from 3000BC to 1500AD. Assuming Bismark doesn't sway any AI against you (which he could do without war), what negative effects has being in a 4500 year war had on your empire?

NONE.

 

[Luckystrike77]

Hehe, i understand where your going. You want war wearines back, and I have no problems with that. It was more a reaction on the very strange comments before in this thread, where nobody could see a single negative effect of war it seemed.

Your comments are also very based on SP with it's bad AI, I play mp games only an may experience some other effects of gameplay in my games vs good opponents (I try to avoid noobs and play with people on a high level). When you have 2 good players in a stalemate war for a very long time, with no gains, just killed units and pillaged improvements, and less ressources spent on other things then the war effort, it really costs for them. Of course playing vs an AI in war, or attacking a noob that gives up at once or havent built any units or use them in every foolish way possible is no match, and makes war extremely profitable.

Perhaps the way I play this game is what really makes it shine. I love my Civ5 games alot, and have the best multiplayer experiences (as long as the bugs does not kill it).

 

[JohnnyW]

Hehe, i understand where your going. You want war wearines back, and I have no problems with that. It was more a reaction on the very strange comments before in this thread, where nobody could see a single negative effect of war it seemed.

Your comments are also very based on SP with it's bad AI, I play mp games only an may experience some other effects of gameplay in my games vs good opponents (I try to avoid noobs and play with people on a high level). When you have 2 good players in a stalemate war for a very long time, with no gains, just killed units and pillaged improvements, and less ressources spent on other things then the war effort, it really costs for them. Of course playing vs an AI in war, or attacking a noob that gives up at once or havent built any units or use them in every foolish way possible is no match, and makes war extremely profitable.

Perhaps the way I play this game is what really makes it shine. I love my Civ5 games alot, and have the best multiplayer experiences (as long as the bugs does not kill it).

I'm not sure what negative effects I would want for extended war, but surely there should be something to avoid the sillyness of my example above.

Yes, I play Civ single-player only (though usually at Immortal), so the AI incompetence definitely impacts my view. It doesn't help that my attempts at MP have been glitchy (as most people's has from what I've read). I do agree that in an all human game war would have a much different effect on how you play than against the AI.

The point remains that other than needing to change your strategy there is no actual tangible negative for remaining at war.

 

[Luckystrike77]

I'm not sure what negative effects I would want for extended war, but surely there should be something to avoid the sillyness of my example above.

Yes, I play Civ single-player only (though usually at Immortal), so the AI incompetence definitely impacts my view. It doesn't help that my attempts at MP have been glitchy (as most people's has from what I've read). I do agree that in an all human game war would have a much different effect on how you play than against the AI.

The point remains that other than needing to change your strategy there is no actual tangible negative for remaining at war.

Yep, just the unecessary slaughtering on the front leading nowhere for the two parts in my example. But of course I agree with you.

The good thing about war weariness is that it gives a strong and aggressive opponent a reason to listen to your peace offer if you can defend against him for a long enough time. So long that the war effort starts to hurt his populations morale and he finds it beneficial to end the war. Perhaps you lost one city, or was very competent and managed to lose none. I have always disliked the fact that too many wars in civ are total wars, it's about conquering the whole empire of the opponent in one single war, or being completly conquered yourself. In mp also many ppl quit too when they see that huge warmongering army coming, seeing no hope what so ever (luckily we have 1upt now so a skillfull defender can defend well with well placed cities and units. Not stacks of Doom making every hope vanish from the first turn of war)

 

[ohioastronomy]

War weariness is also important because it gives a reason for limited war; right now there is no particularly good reason to stop before an opponent is wiped out. It also rewards people who can avoid pointless wars (as they get stronger at peace, while nations always at war stagnate.)

You can also add trade, and the loss of trade while at war (along with drastically increased military costs) would be another reasonable cost.

 

[Luckystrike77]

War weariness is also important because it gives a reason for limited war; right now there is no particularly good reason to stop before an opponent is wiped out. It also rewards people who can avoid pointless wars (as they get stronger at peace, while nations always at war stagnate.)

You can also add trade, and the loss of trade while at war (along with drastically increased military costs) would be another reasonable cost.

Good thoughts indeed.

 

[JohnnyW]

The good thing about war weariness is that it gives a strong and aggressive opponent a reason to listen to your peace offer if you can defend against him for a long enough time. So long that the war effort starts to hurt his populations morale and he finds it beneficial to end the war.

Yes, this.

 

[ICanHasName?]

There are no negative effects. The AI will constantly make units and send them into your land to be processed into experience. War actually allows you to maintain a smaller standing military because you don't have to worry about that opponent building up a large enough force to overwhelm and conquer you. Plus any unit that survives the first few turn of war is going to be getting just tons of experience.

 

[wurstburst]

I hate the idea of using unhappiness to limit wars. If you add in a happiness penalty, basically the happiest civ will win the war, just by playing defense.

What, you hit -10 unhappiness? So sad. Give me a few cities, and we'll end the war. No, you won't take peace? Then be prepared for a beating as my happy swordsmen take out your unhappy riflemen.

I always hated the war weariness concept from civ iv. It would be even worse in this game because of the huge penalties that accrue at -10.

If you are winning the war, you should never be artificially forced into stopping.

What I would like to see is more benefits to having peace. For example, allowing civs with DoF to have significant culture benefits. Or allowing trade agreements between civs that aren't at war that give significant GPT benefits (i.e. for 30 turns both sides get +X GPT per city, based on the number of cities in the smaller civ, and the era that the most backward civ is in).

Then there would be a real advantage to not warring, and not some artificial limit on how long you can war.

 

[Babri]

I really hope that they'll introduce a concept like war exhaustion instead of war weariness. So if u loose units or cities or u get pillaged too often then your war exhaustion will increase which will affect your happiness, production, growth etc. You'll loose exhaustion by killings units & capturing cities. If the war goes in stalemate then the attacker's war exhaustion will start increasing. In peacetime exaustion will gradually go down. This will be realistic & will be rather fun. So for example in real-life US who is constantly loosing troops in Afghanistan without achieving anything will eventually sign peace due to high war exhaustion.

 

[JohnnyW]

I hate the idea of using unhappiness to limit wars. If you add in a happiness penalty, basically the happiest civ will win the war, just by playing defense.

What, you hit -10 unhappiness? So sad. Give me a few cities, and we'll end the war. No, you won't take peace? Then be prepared for a beating as my happy swordsmen take out your unhappy riflemen.

This brings in the point that unhappiness causing a penalty to military unit strength is ********.

Yeah, that tank would've blown up that cavalry, but he was just too sad to protect his own life to the fullest degree.

edit: unhappiness should only affect civilian life. If you want to make military units weaker from lack of morale then you need a seperate morale stat with a mechanic not tied to luxury resources and natural wonders et al.

 

[migkillertwo]

I'm still getting used to Civ5, but one thing I've noticed that is quite different to me is the way war is treated. It almost appears that there are no negative effects to war at all in any circumstance. Granted, going through "enemy" territory can be perilous during war, but other then that am I missing something?

Does war increase some costs or make other civs like me less or cause unhappiness?

In other words, if another civ declares war on me, and I win whatever battle - they then offer a peace treaty. Do I have any reason why I should take it rather then just leave them on the back burner so I wont suffer diplo penalties for declaring war on them later?

It's usually a huge opportunity cost for me. Rather than building settlers, markets, or libraries, I'm replacing dead units and filling holes in my front with new units. Maybe I'm just a terrible player, but it's inevitable that a handful of my units will die. Maintaining units to actually fight at the front and reserve units is extremely expensive for me, so I have to constantly build units. Unless you have already established yourself as a very large and powerful empire, you can't have some huge ready-made army.

 

[aatami]

It's usually a huge opportunity cost for me. Rather than building settlers, markets, or libraries, I'm replacing dead units and filling holes in my front with new units. Maybe I'm just a terrible player, but it's inevitable that a handful of my units will die. Maintaining units to actually fight at the front and reserve units is extremely expensive for me, so I have to constantly build units. Unless you have already established yourself as a very large and powerful empire, you can't have some huge ready-made army.

Yes, there is negative effects of war, other than having to spend a lot of time training an army.

This: Making and army and keeping it up takes time out of strengthening other things.