Paradox Inspired Diplomacy and Warfare

[synyster]

How exactly is the casus belli system any different than what we currently have? I always declare war on people for one reason or another, wether it be religion, resources, keep other civs happy, or just pissing me off. This works the same with the AI.

Casus belli is just a flowery way of saying why ur going to war, but we already have a system where the AI says why there going to war with you.

We already have a white peace, your version is just changing the name.

I find war score is too one-sided with decisions.

We don't need to shove paradoxes systems into every other game.

It isn't just a 'flowery way' of doing it, it would be hard-coded into the AI to actually make those reasons you go to war mean something. At the minute it seems the only difference is who started it and wether you take the last city. CB's would make starting wars more of a decision, I would like to see the most 'unjust' aggression face stronger diplo penalties than now & maybe even support from other civ's when using a CB to re-take your lost territory, not neccessarily military support, war subsidies or diplo modifier boost maybe.

 

[ArnoldI]

I think that something that is missed is most estrategy games is dirty diplomacy. Civs and empires get to war and gain diplo boons even without a "Ceasus Belli" because they have diplomatic tricks that make them seem right.

 

[Irkalla]

I think that something that is missed is most estrategy games is dirty diplomacy. Civs and empires get to war and gain diplo boons even without a "Ceasus Belli" because they have diplomatic tricks that make them seem right.

Pacts are a good way to go about this. Like treaty organizations. Good examples are the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Warsaw Pact.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

When I read the title I thought you were referring to a book I'm reading right now!

 

[Argive]

I'm a big fan of Paradox games, but I don't think this would benefit CiV. There is some equivalent of casus belli in CiV: if you declare friendship and then attack, you get a diplo hit vis-a-vis other civs; denouncing before attacking helps; attacking too many city-states gets you a bad rep among remaining city-states. Also, I never liked the inability to keep your war gains in some Paradox games, and the calculation of war score is a constant source of complaint in the Paradox Forum. Especially in EU Rome.

 

[Galgus]

I like your idea, but I'd like to suggest some diplomatic mechanics for the defending nation at war with an aggressor- mainly that they should not incur any warmonger penalty until a white peace is offered by the aggressor.

With this, aggressors in wars should always ask for a white peace before one with reparations going against them, with white peace giving a diplomatic boost to the defender while reparation demands range from doing nothing for their war penalty to carrying a heavy war penalty based on how severe they are.

Continuing to fight after a white peace has been offered should begin war penalty costs for the defender, which should start lower than the aggressor but scale to equal their penalty level based on how long the war is drawn out and what war penalty actions are taken.

I just don't think a nation declaring war on another should justify the defender to completely take them over in the eyes of the world- though harsh reparation demands coupled with military prowess could certainly be made to make other civs wary of going to war with you, even if they don't like you.