New Beta Version - October 10th (10/10)

[Minh Le]

Its much harder than before but its also more interesting. Im fine with 50%.

 

[Grabbl]

I also think 50% is ok (though I wouldn't consider myself that much of a warmonger, more of an opportunist). I pretty much always feel having enough time to achieve a reasonable advancement before war weariness kicks in, and on top of that, you can even continue against the war weariness (at least the other war party usually suffers more than you). Only annihilation wars (against civs with 8+ cities) get harder, but I consider that a good thing.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Which policy trees did you pick? I ask, cause authority has a 25% WW reduction. I think it will reduce the WW by killing an enemy unit down to 37,5% (unless Gazebo is telling something other and it reduces it to 25%).
It might be OK for warmongers to reduce their WW, but then it get completely out of relation.
As non-authority civ, fighting a defensive war VS an authority civ, killing 3 enemy units leads to the same WW as losing 2 own units. While an authority nation only get hit by 1 WW, if they kill 3 units of me.
Additionally, there's another WW reduction in the autocracy ideology, leading to the strange possibility, losing a unit creates the same WW to for the authority-autocracy than for the defending civ.
Was thought about that interaction?

 

[TwoPodRay]

Difficult to say. The change is a pure balance solution, not a logic one.
If Iam able to shoot from sea every unit and city by long ranged battle ships, without an option to be countered by enemy, it make no sense I get attrition too.
If you argue with reality and logic, you could say, the WW will rise more in the country where the fight happens cause of devastation and raids of civil infrastructure. Or you say, the foreign power in your land suffer more WW, cause of longer supply lines and guerilla warfare.
I think it will stay for the purpose of balance. And it joins now the now long list of anti-run-away mechanics.

Of course it makes sense that you get WW. You need gas and ammo to shoot at them and move out of range of retaliation. You can’t do that infinitely IRL, and you shouldn’t be able to do that here because it isn’t balanced.

The devastation and nonworkable tiles and unhappiness from them being pillaged is the malus to the defender. But the defender’s nation’s resolve to beat back the invaders should mean WW doesn’t affect them as much, especially if in own lands where supply lines are short.

Again, my only concern is for defenders, and only when both WW can increase so quickly when the enemy isn’t actually hurting you (but you’re just defending your land and killing invaders) and when exceeding supply cap (due to WW reducing it) which cripples economy. It isn’t in reference to anti run away or making it harder/easier for warmongers. It’s just addressing a potential concern for defenders.

 

[Stalker0]

Of course it makes sense that you get WW. You need gas and ammo to shoot at them and move out of range of retaliation. You can’t do that infinitely IRL, and you shouldn’t be able to do that here because it isn’t balanced.

The devastation and nonworkable tiles and unhappiness from them being pillaged is the malus to the defender. But the defender’s nation’s resolve to beat back the invaders should mean WW doesn’t affect them as much, especially if in own lands where supply lines are short.

Again, my only concern is for defenders, and only when both WW can increase so quickly when the enemy isn’t actually hurting you (but you’re just defending your land and killing invaders) and when exceeding supply cap (due to WW reducing it) which cripples economy. It isn’t in reference to anti run away or making it harder/easier for warmongers. It’s just addressing a potential concern for defenders.

I brought up the concern to G when this was first announced and he said he looked for the issue but didn’t see any defender issues in testing. So good enough for me to try out and see if I see any issues with that

 

[BiteInTheMark]

How do you explain a newbie, it's for the sake of balance and stopping warmongers, if an authority-autocracy invader loses wave over wave on the defenders borders but both suffer from the same war weariness?

 

[Stalker0]

How do you explain a newbie, it's for the sake of balance and stopping warmongers, if an authority-autocracy invader loses wave over wave on the defenders borders but both suffer from the same war weariness?

So you have a culture extremely focused on the glory of warfare vs a culture that believes in other things, is it that hard to believe culture 1 would be ok with losing 1000s of troops while culture 2 balks at losing a few hundred?

Remember when a unit is injured, troops are still injured or killed. The defenders people are still dying.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

So you have a culture extremely focused on the glory of warfare vs a culture that believes in other things, is it that hard to believe culture 1 would be ok with losing 1000s of troops while culture 2 balks at losing a few hundred?

Remember when a unit is injured, troops are still injured or killed. The defenders people are still dying.

Now you are trying to defend it cause it's there. If Iam able to kill all enemy units with machine guns and artillery, which I mainly do, costs me only ammunition.

A tank costs 5.000.000€. A anti tank rocket to destroy it not even 5.000€.

The problem is, WW tries to be 2 things at same time. If separated, it would be war weariness, which would influence the morale and combat efficiency of troops and on the other side war exhaustion, which would increase the cost to the economy to stay in war.
Iam not totally against the change, but it make no sense, an anti warmonger mechanic can hit a peaceful defending civ as strong as the invader.

 

[Gazebo]

Now you are trying to defend it cause it's there. If Iam able to kill all enemy units with machine guns and artillery, which I mainly do, costs me only ammunition.

A tank costs 5.000.000€. A anti tank rocket to destroy it not even 5.000€.

The problem is, WW tries to be 2 things at same time. If separated, it would be war weariness, which would influence the morale and combat efficiency of troops and on the other side war exhaustion, which would increase the cost to the economy to stay in war.
Iam not totally against the change, but it make no sense, an anti warmonger mechanic can hit a peaceful defending civ as strong as the invader.

And now you're attacking it because it is there.

The defender has a lot of advantages. Quick reinforcement, forts/citadels, city attacks, roads...all of these things give the defender an edge in combat.

Also, the mechanic does not hit the defender as hard as the attacker - if the attacker is the one taking most losses, it is hitting the defender exactly 50% as hard.

G

 

[tu_79]

And now you're attacking it because it is there.

The defender has a lot of advantages. Quick reinforcement, forts/citadels, city attacks, roads...all of these things give the defender an edge in combat.

Also, the mechanic does not hit the defender as hard as the attacker - if the attacker is the one taking most losses, it is hitting the defender exactly 50% as hard.

G

And this is one of those things that need to be experienced before critizising.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

And now you're attacking it because it is there.

The defender has a lot of advantages. Quick reinforcement, forts/citadels, city attacks, roads...all of these things give the defender an edge in combat.

Also, the mechanic does not hit the defender as hard as the attacker - if the attacker is the one taking most losses, it is hitting the defender exactly 50% as hard.

G

I was arguing for the case, the attacker has the WW reductions from authority and autocracy. Which would decrease the WW by losing a unit to only 50%, the same value as the one, which killed it. Or is the reflection of the war weariness always 50%, in this case 25% for the one which killed the unit?

 

[Stalker0]

Now you are trying to defend it cause it's there. If Iam able to kill all enemy units with machine guns and artillery, which I mainly do, costs me only ammunition.

A tank costs 5.000.000€. A anti tank rocket to destroy it not even 5.000€.

The problem is, WW tries to be 2 things at same time. If separated, it would be war weariness, which would influence the morale and combat efficiency of troops and on the other side war exhaustion, which would increase the cost to the economy to stay in war.
Iam not totally against the change, but it make no sense, an anti warmonger mechanic can hit a peaceful defending civ as strong as the invader.

Ultimately you are correct that WW is not perfect. It is an abstraction that greatly simplifies the complex interactions of war fatigue, economic drain, anti-war protests, and simple need to replenish lives. But it provides a reasonable deterrent to limit endless war, and does it in a way that is rationale, even if its not perfect.

 

[Gazebo]

I was arguing for the case, the attacker has the WW reductions from authority and autocracy. Which would decrease the WW by losing a unit to only 50%, the same value as the one, which killed it. Or is the reflection of the war weariness always 50%, in this case 25% for the one which killed the unit?

The overall WW score is reduced, not the amount received from party a v. party b. Even if it was done a different way, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue here. WW reduction is good whether you are the attacker or you are the defender, it is agnostic.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

The overall WW score is reduced, not the amount received from party a v. party b. Even if it was done a different way, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue here. WW reduction is good whether you are the attacker or you are the defender, it is agnostic.

G

OK, I thought it's calculated a bit different, but in the end it's the same. This mechanic was implemented to increase the difficulty of warring and going for a domination victory?
I think I do an example so you understand what I mean. Nation A with authority and autocracy (both trees can give 25% WW reduction) attacks an other nation B. Nation A is unsuccessful attacking and lose 20 units, while nation B didn't lose any unit. Losing a unit increase WW by (let's simply say) 1%. So attacking nation A is hit by 20% WW, while nation B receives the half value, 10%. But cause of the 25+25% WW reduction of the invading nation A, their WW decreased to half, 10%.
In this case both nations have the same WW, even the nation A was the only one which lost units. The additional WW by killing units gives the defending, not aggressiv playing nation a disadvantage, even the mechanic was done to stop domination orientated (often at least authority picking) aggressiv nations.

 

[Stalker0]

The additional WW by killing units gives the defending, not aggressiv playing nation a disadvantage, even the mechanic was done to stop domination orientated (often at least authority picking) aggressiv nations.

The discount would still apply if the authority player was the defender, they would suffer even less WW in that case.

However, there is another point embedded in this statement that is good to consider. WW is at its core designed to prevent warmongers from warring too long. Yet we then give warmongers tools to reduce that very mechanic. Maybe we should not, we don't want warmongers to slip out of that very mechanic, else what's the point of it in the first place. Maybe that WW reduction should be replaced with something else.

 

[Dolen]

I'm totally fine with the new WW system even if it's for balancing reason (or what some may call ARAM).

And also, I think it makes sense (realism perspective) in the context of modern warfare:
Say, I drop a nuclear bomb on an enemy city, and that would, in the modern context, make my own people concerned and disgusted.
Although I admit it's hard to understand outside of the said context...

 

[Dolen]

In this case both nations have the same WW, even the nation A was the only one which lost units.

Isn't that the point of going full Authority and Autocracy?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Isn't that the point of going full Authority and Autocracy?

To wear down your enemy by WW, even if you completely suck at warfare? Was there no reason to pick the combo before the change to 50% WW reflection?

Say, I drop a nuclear bomb on an enemy city, and that would, in the modern context, make my own people concerned and disgusted

Staying with this example, this would only lead to less morale and happiness, but would it increase the production cost of your tanks and their maintenence?

 

[TwoPodRay]

And now you're attacking it because it is there.

The defender has a lot of advantages. Quick reinforcement, forts/citadels, city attacks, roads...all of these things give the defender an edge in combat.

Also, the mechanic does not hit the defender as hard as the attacker - if the attacker is the one taking most losses, it is hitting the defender exactly 50% as hard.

G

I don’t want to be that person referring to an old version’s game, but a quick aside that inspired the topic that is still relevant (until I can stop traveling and sit down and play a test game on current patch): when playing tall, with an already limited supply cap and sitting at or near max to ensure you can defend your cities, WW dropping your supply cap hurts much worse since it means you will quickly exceed supply cap. The penalties for doing so are quite severe, in addition to the unhappiness that WW already causes.

What is the best way to defend yourself playing tall at or near supply max and getting drowned in WW? Keep the units and stay drowned in supply cap penalties until the AI hopefully peaces out? Delete the units to get out from under crushing supply cap penalties with a massive risk of losing your cities?

What if you’re constantly the target of chain brokered wars such that it’s one after another, where even if one AI peaces out as soon as is possible, you’re already starting to feel the effects of WW from the next war before previous WW has worn off.

I know I’m painting a worst case picture but this actually happened to me before. Just curious if there might be thoughts to address this or how to best handle being in a situation like this.

 

[tu_79]

I don’t want to be that person referring to an old version’s game, but a quick aside that inspired the topic that is still relevant (until I can stop traveling and sit down and play a test game on current patch): when playing tall, with an already limited supply cap and sitting at or near max to ensure you can defend your cities, WW dropping your supply cap hurts much worse since it means you will quickly exceed supply cap. The penalties for doing so are quite severe, in addition to the unhappiness that WW already causes.

What is the best way to defend yourself playing tall at or near supply max and getting drowned in WW? Keep the units and stay drowned in supply cap penalties until the AI hopefully peaces out? Delete the units to get out from under crushing supply cap penalties with a massive risk of losing your cities?

What if you’re constantly the target of chain brokered wars such that it’s one after another, where even if one AI peaces out as soon as is possible, you’re already starting to feel the effects of WW from the next war before previous WW has worn off.

I know I’m painting a worst case picture but this actually happened to me before. Just curious if there might be thoughts to address this or how to best handle being in a situation like this.

This is what a nation that despises military deserves. In all my tall games I make sure I build a military wonder and place an early citadel. Going peacefully does not mean that I can ignore my army.