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

[Rafs]

Every war weariness? Even trade route plunder?

While I can't say 100%, everything that would add war weariness to your rival will give you half (killing units, taking cities, plundering trade routes, not 100% sure about liberating cities though), that is how it is right now, and and I have to say it makes vassaling anyone on huge maps a very very hard task.
Despite this, I've seen some civs in game go crazy, but I guess they can afford to neglect supply for some turns.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

You're still going to get drops and hit unexpectedly sometimes by things like food from CS quests, but the swings have been more controlled on the one game I've got to play this version. That's also with me pushing wide Mongolia, while Monty was feasting on the other continent. Although there where dips and the new war weariness was felt, both of us were still able to do our thing (King difficulty). Game felt solid.

 

[Dolen]

Just to confirm, so if I do something that adds to the war weariness of the opponent (like killing a unit), 50% of it also adds to that of mine?

I have to say that sounds weird, but if it is for balancing reason it's understandable.

 

[Stalker0]

Just to confirm, so if I do something that adds to the war weariness of the opponent (like killing a unit), 50% of it also adds to that of mine?

I have to say that sounds weird, but if it is for balancing reason it's understandable.

Think of it this way. In ancient times, people had to stop warring because people had to get back to work during the growing seasons. In modern times, the loss of life creates concerns and protests.

Even when your killing units, you are still losing troops. You are still putting troops in harms way, and committing them to military action. That keeps them away from the fields (ancient concern) and puts them in danger (modern time). Its obviously better to be winning than losing, but loses still add up regardless.

 

[TwoPodRay]

Think of it this way. In ancient times, people had to stop warring because people had to get back to work during the growing seasons. In modern times, the loss of life creates concerns and protests.

Even when your killing units, you are still losing troops. You are still putting troops in harms way, and committing them to military action. That keeps them away from the fields (ancient concern) and puts them in danger (modern time). Its obviously better to be winning than losing, but loses still add up regardless.

Overall I like this a lot more than how it functioned previously. It was far too easy to lay waste to the world with strong warmongers before.

My only concerns are still defensive war weariness, which might still be a bit higher than I’d think necessary, and how exceeding the supply cap, due to war weariness, kills your economy. I think I am only concerned about either of these when they are both in the game as is. If defensive war weariness were less harsh, I’d have no worries. If exceeding the supply cap (due to WW) did not cripple economy so much, I’d have no worries (though changing this would make it easier for warmongers). Only together do I think they can cause an issue.

 

[neo_arcadia]

I want to hear your opinion about this. How do you differentiate offensive and defensive war so that it can be understood by computer? I mean, I can say that "I'm on the defensive/offensive war now" but it's quite subjective and abstract. My perception of defensive war maybe is not applied in other person's perception of defensive war. Applying that into code is another effort and probably not gonna satisfy everyone's opinion.

 

[YukiN]

I want to hear your opinion about this. How do you differentiate offensive and defensive war so that it can be understood by computer? I mean, I can say that "I'm on the defensive/offensive war now" but it's quite subjective and abstract. My perception of defensive war maybe is not applied in other person's perception of defensive war. Applying that into code is another effort and probably not gonna satisfy everyone's opinion.

Simple solution is to tie it to territory, like anti-warmonger fervour.

 

[Minh Le]

I wonder if the game can recognize the civ that declares war then apply heavier war weariness to the aggressor.I think it could solve the problem of offensive and defensive war while still make it harder for those warmongers. I dont know about modding, just give my opinion

 

[TwoPodRay]

I wonder if the game can recognize the civ that declares war then apply heavier war weariness to the aggressor.I think it could solve the problem of offensive and defensive war while still make it harder for those warmongers. I dont know about modding, just give my opinion

Well, it would actually be more abusable for warmongers that way. I have been doing this actually in my testing of other edits I made, and it makes the strategy too strong. The strategy is to provoke the enemy to war through your array of available negative diplo actions. Once they declare war, then you engage full war mode, since you get fewer warmongering points against you when capturing cities.

Tying it to territory seems like a good option, but could then be somewhat exploitable by planting a junk city on the border of whoever you want to fight and trying to use your lands as a unit killing/healing zone before you push into theirs to capture good cities. Plus that city on their border would provoke them to war, also reducing warmongering points against you. Maybe have it such that WW can increase to a set max percentage as long as you’re warring in your own lands, maybe even neutral lands, but once in theirs, then the max percentage is opened up to reach the full maximum at 75% WW? Just spitballing.

 

[Stalker0]

Well, it would actually be more abusable for warmongers that way. I have been doing this actually in my testing of other edits I made, and it makes the strategy too strong. The strategy is to provoke the enemy to war through your array of available negative diplo actions. Once they declare war, then you engage full war mode, since you get fewer warmongering points against you when capturing cities.

Tying it to territory seems like a good option, but could then be somewhat exploitable by planting a junk city on the border of whoever you want to fight and trying to use your lands as a unit killing/healing zone before you push into theirs to capture good cities. Plus that city on their border would provoke them to war, also reducing warmongering points against you. Maybe have it such that WW can increase to a set max percentage as long as you’re warring in your own lands, maybe even neutral lands, but once in theirs, then the max percentage is opened up to reach the full maximum at 75% WW? Just spitballing.

I mean if your going to the trouble of building a crap city as a staging point....isn't that just a good war tactic?

 

[TwoPodRay]

I mean if your going to the trouble of building a crap city as a staging point....isn't that just a good war tactic?

You don’t even have to build anything in the city or use it for anything other than it counting as your “own lands”. While, yes it is a tactic, this is a purely human friendly tactic to intentionally dodge WW. An AI would be unlikely to ever do this. That throws off the balance a bit. Staging points in general are a good idea though for war, I’d like to further emphasize that point!

EDIT: I’m also trying to look at any solution from both sides, of how it might fully meet the intent of solving a potential issue, and of how it might be exploitable. Trying to seek the most balanced approach.

 

[Stalker0]

You don’t even have to build anything in the city or use it for anything other than it counting as your “own lands”. While, yes it is a tactic, this is a purely human friendly tactic to intentionally dodge WW. An AI would be unlikely to ever do this. That throws off the balance a bit. Staging points in general are a good idea though for war, I’d like to further emphasize that point!

EDIT: I’m also trying to look at any solution from both sides, of how it might fully meet the intent of solving a potential issue, and of how it might be exploitable. Trying to seek the most balanced approach.

You are also taking a penalty to science and culture for that staging ground (since I assume its a new city and not a puppet), so you are paying for the privilege.

 

[TwoPodRay]

You are also taking a penalty to science and culture for that staging ground (since I assume its a new city and not a puppet), so you are paying for the privilege.

Which is a good point, and a decision that certainly must be weighed. You can minimize growth and build only Production/Culture/Science to try to even out the costs. Then once you take one city and max WW, you can peace out and use your new puppet as the next staging ground and so on, always first using staging ground and provoked war to kill off units before pushing into the city, also farming XP. Good war tactics, sure, but also possibly abusing a potential WW mechanic intended to help out pure defenders, by using initial “defensive” period to thin out units before infiltration.

 

[neo_arcadia]

How often you guys experienced winning with like, 50 warscore but the peace deal value is zero? I was even at a condition where winning with 75 warscore but peace deal value is zero.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

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.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

How often you guys experienced winning with like, 50 warscore but the peace deal value is zero? I was even at a condition where winning with 75 warscore but peace deal value is zero.

The peace deal value can only be the maximum the Enemy can offer. If your enemy has nothing to give (resources, money, ...) the maximum is zero.

 

[tu_79]

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.

Nope. This is not a rubber banding mechanic. This just prevents domination victories from happening too early.

This is a soft rein for the warring strategy. As warring has been proved to be the most easy way to take advantage against the AI.

Anti warmonger fervor is the anti runaway mechanic, but you only notice that in the highest difficulties, where AI need it to face the human player.

Besides, war weariness was introduced a year ago, and it was working well for people with low combat skills. Now it works (hopefully) well for everyone. As @Minh Le is proving, fighting several civs in a row is still possible, with war weariness from previous wars not affecting the current ones, so as long as you have more than one neighbor, you can still aggressively expand very quickly. This is risky, though.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Nope. This is not a rubber banding mechanic. This just prevents domination victories from happening too early.

This is a soft rein for the warring strategy. As warring has been proved to be the most easy way to take advantage against the AI.

Anti warmonger fervor is the anti runaway mechanic, but you only notice that in the highest difficulties, where AI need it to face the human player.

Besides, war weariness was introduced a year ago, and it was working well for people with low combat skills. Now it works (hopefully) well for everyone. As @Minh Le is proving, fighting several civs in a row is still possible, with war weariness from previous wars not affecting the current ones, so as long as you have more than one neighbor, you can still aggressively expand very quickly. This is risky, though.

Isn't this a subjective definition thing?
Iam philosophical interested in your definition of a Anti-Run-Away-mechanic.

 

[tu_79]

Isn't this a subjective definition thing?
Iam philosophical interested in your definition of a Anti-Run-Away-mechanic.

A mechanic that allows civs that are lagging behind to recover before the game is over, either by giving bonuses to the catch overs or by giving penalties to the run aways.
This mechanic is not for the civs that are lagging or against the civs that are winning, but for a specific strategy. You can be an unsuccessful civ and war weariness will punish you the same way as if you were successful.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

A mechanic that allows civs that are lagging behind to recover before the game is over, either by giving bonuses to the catch overs or by giving penalties to the run aways.
This mechanic is not for the civs that are lagging or against the civs that are winning, but for a specific strategy. You can be an unsuccessful civ and war weariness will punish you the same way as if you were successful.

If you define it that way, anti warmonger fervor isn't a ARAM (anti-run-awa-mechanic), too. If you declare a lot of wars and lose all the time the cities you have conquered, or even lose own cities, you get hit by anti warmonger fervor, even your unsuccessful.
Same would be true to unhappiness by tech lead, your empire might suck in all aspects but lead in a specific strategy by gaining science. In both cases it would hit a non-runaway.

I can understand the purpose of the change, but maybe 50% is a too high modifier.
I hadn't till yet a long exhausting war in the new version, but I could imagine some trouble in high difficulties. Thanks to regaining production if a unit is killed an the higher supply cap, the AI could simply sit out a war with the human by sending wave over wave of units, till the human has reached its limits and need to peace out.
I just want to point on this possibility to increase the sensivity to that. But if heavy warmonger players confirm it isn't too much, Iam fine with it.