[Rising Tide] What is new about the war score ?

[Acken]

Assuming CivBE AI is pretty close to Civ5 here is how it currently works in civ5:

Every turn
-The AI computes what it still has in cities and units, compare it to what its opponent has to make a projection on the future of the war.
-The AI calculates what damage it suffered during the war.
-The AI calculates what damage it dealt during the war

The AI then gives a score to both (WarProjection and WarDamageLevel(for each player)).

Then it computes a total score from these 3 measure.
This final score decides what it will give or ask in a peace deal.

So what exactly is difference besides making it transparent ? Improved logic ? Removal of the projection and decay maybe ? Since it looks like a score that rises up

 

[SupremacyKing2]

short answer: we don't really know yet. The live stream tomorrow should give us more info since they will be exploring the war score feature with Brasilia.

My thoughts: yes, it makes the process more transparent which I think is a very good thing. Civ needs more transparency in these game mechanics. It is also possible that they tweaked the formula so the results will be different than in civ5. The other big difference is that in civ5, there was the negotiation table, where you could still try to negotiate a deal. In BERT, it seems the game will auto pick a certain deal for you based on the war score, but I could be wrong there.

 

[Kaigen]

Hopefully some improved logic is involved, but it also allows for effects that influence the calculation, such as the new Brasilia trait. It may also be that Fear or Respect might influence the calculation, and making it transparent allows the player to see how their style of play is impacting the AI's decision-making.

 

[Acken]

short answer: we don't really know yet. The live stream tomorrow should give us more info since they will be exploring the war score feature with Brasilia.

My thoughts: yes, it makes the process more transparent which I think is a very good thing. Civ needs more transparency in these game mechanics. It is also possible that they tweaked the formula so the results will be different than in civ5. The other big difference is that in civ5, there was the negotiation table, where you could still try to negotiate a deal. In BERT, it seems the game will auto pick a certain deal for you based on the war score, but I could be wrong there.

Well I think we may not know before getting the source.

 

[omniclast]

The difference seems to be that they've added bonuses from traits/quests that directly modify the final value, so the AI will think you are doing better than you actually are. That seems like a new thing.

 

[Acken]

The difference seems to be that they've added bonuses from traits/quests that directly modify the final value, so the AI will think you are doing better than you actually are. That seems like a new thing.

I guess but I'm not impressed by this part, considering I could make a mod doing that in civ5 in 5 minutes.

I hope the logic is improved though.

 

[Ryika]

Well, I hope the system is geared towards making an AI that doesn't "get anywhere" sign white peace (at least), instead of demanding 3 of your cities after a 50-turn stalemate, just because you don't want to build 5 times more units than you really need to defend yourself.

 

[Maximus_Light]

Honestly, even the current war score system in Civ 5 works, if they just make it apparent that's all it would really need. They don't even need to explain things in detail, it's clearly intelligible as a player with experience in Civ 5 will be able to get a general sense of it just from how well they are doing and how the situation looks so I don't see why the keep it a guessing game in the first place, or at least not for the whole game.

 

[Acken]

Well, I hope the system is geared towards making an AI that doesn't "get anywhere" sign white peace (at least), instead of demanding 3 of your cities after a 50-turn stalemate, just because you don't want to build 5 times more units than you really need to defend yourself.

I agree that the projection, comparing strength, shouldn't really matter compared to past actions. Units killed and more importantly cities taken.

 

[joncnunn]

I think all it's doing is exposing the number that the AIs were internally doing behind the scene in BE and Civ V.

 

[omniclast]

It is apparently a very different number. From what we saw in the livestream today, it is only based on unit kills and conquering cities. The dev had 0 points until he killed a unit, and then gained 16 (+30% for his trait, which he seemed to forget about). The AI also had zero until it killed one of his units, then got 16 (they both killed each others' cutters). So forget complex calculations, this is really just about how much stuff you can take out.

The weird part was that you no longer have the power to make an offer for peace. The difference between your war scores determines exactly what you have to give up (or what you will get) to call for peace. It looks like you will *always* be able to broker peace with the AI -- even the turn after you declare war -- if you're willing to pay the price for it.

There are some pretty bizarre implications to this system. For example if you DoW an AI and steal a worker, then you'll have a positive war score, and the next turn you can declare peace for a positive benefit. Like CS worker stealing on steroids. What the eff.

They said the same system will even apply in MP... meaning that if two human players want to declare peace, they have to accept the war score tradeoff, regardless of where they currently stand in the conflict. So theoretically, if we had a 100 turn war, and I killed 30 of your units -- but then someone else declared war, and killed all of mine -- our war score would still benefit me, even though you have an army and I don't. At that point, even if you've got a big ol' army around my capital and there's nothing I can do about it, you still have to pay *me* to end the war.

I guess it sort of makes sense that the lengthy history of the war makes it harder for your people to call it quits... but it really doesn't seem like they thought this through.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

It is apparently a very different number. From what we saw in the livestream today, it is only based on unit kills and conquering cities. The dev had 0 points until he killed a unit, and then gained 16 (+30% for his trait, which he seemed to forget about). The AI also had zero until it killed one of his units, then got 16 (they both killed each others' cutters). So forget complex calculations, this is really just about how much stuff you can take out.

The weird part was that you no longer have the power to make an offer for peace. The difference between your war scores determines exactly what you have to give up (or what you will get) to call for peace. It looks like you will *always* be able to broker peace with the AI -- even the turn after you declare war -- if you're willing to pay the price for it.

There are some pretty bizarre implications to this system. For example if you DoW an AI and steal a worker, then you'll have a positive war score, and the next turn you can declare peace for a positive benefit. Like CS worker stealing on steroids. What the eff.

They said the same system will even apply in MP... meaning that if two human players want to declare peace, they have to accept the war score tradeoff, regardless of where they currently stand in the conflict. So theoretically, if we had a 100 turn war, and I killed 30 of your units -- but then someone else declared war, and killed all of mine -- our war score would still benefit me, even though you have an army and I don't. At that point, even if you've got a big ol' army around my capital and there's nothing I can do about it, you still have to pay *me* to end the war.

I guess it sort of makes sense that the lengthy history of the war makes it harder for your people to call it quits... but it really doesn't seem like they thought this through.

I see what you are saying but..

1. I don't think what you said it's true, Because it's exploitive that any body would figure out, if you get attacked, you can immediately sue for peace, because both sides will have 0/0. What exactly is stopping you from using that to your advantage. Also, it would be foolish if I'm getting stomped and my attacked decides to end it, not giving me a chance to fight back. I don't think it's guaranteed.

2. Stealing a worker is not enough to get anything out of it, you're still probably got 5 score which isn't enough to get anything beyond White Peace. Workers won't give you THAT much of a score.

3. I do admit the fact that we can't pick what's on the table is going to cause HUGE problems but it also solves a lot of current exploits I think.Although I do believe that the war score should become a currency simliar to how it is in EU games. So each city, resource, energy, science etc costs to take so you spend your profit of a warscore.

However, again, I don't think it will be a wise idea for you to be able to peace out after a single turn.

 

[Alkaid]

What I thought was most odd was how the dev said it would work in multiplayer. As I was watching the stream and thought "so I guess this won't matter in multiplayer, just like fear/respect," and right as I was thinking that he started explaining it for multiplayer. However, his answer was pretty much "Yes, fear/respect will matter in multiplayer... you can see what your fear/respect would be with them, and estimate how much stuff they have!" That was more of a no than a yes, to me.

And am I getting it right that you're forced to peace out on certain terms due to war score, even with other humans? Against the AI it sounds alright at least, even though that's somewhat how it already works, since if you really kick an AI's ass they tend to give up cities or gold for peace anyway. But forcing peace terms with human players sounds like it'd be pretty bad.

Granted I've never played Civ in multiplayer before, but with these two new systems I just kept thinking how they would(or wouldn't) work out for it.

 

[VCrakeV]

I'm cool with it, given that we have a choice if we peace out or not (that is, if the AI asks for peace, we can say no).



I also hope that there will be some flexibility (such as all items having a score, so you can have anything that adds to your score). Perhaps peace itself could have a score assigned to it.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The weird part was that you no longer have the power to make an offer for peace. The difference between your war scores determines exactly what you have to give up (or what you will get) to call for peace. It looks like you will *always* be able to broker peace with the AI -- even the turn after you declare war -- if you're willing to pay the price for it.

If you sue for peace the turn after declaring war, your war score will be 0-0 or low enough that you will only get a "white peace" where neither side gets anything. So, you will have lost any agreements and get nothing from the peace. So, there is no advantage to suing for peace the turn after your declar war, unless you are strong that you are able to capture a couple of cities in a single turn to get a big war score. I think we saw in one preview that even a war score in your favor of 100-0 still gets you a "white peace", ie nothing. So, your war score has to be really high (probably at least capturing an enemy city) if you hope to get anything from making peace.

So theoretically, if we had a 100 turn war, and I killed 30 of your units -- but then someone else declared war, and killed all of mine -- our war score would still benefit me, even though you have an army and I don't. At that point, even if you've got a big ol' army around my capital and there's nothing I can do about it, you still have to pay *me* to end the war.

No, it would not work that way. The game shows you the war score before you sue for peace. If I see my war score is strongly against me because you kicked my ass, but you then lost your military and I am surrounding your capital, I am simply not going to offer peace in the first place since I know it is not to my advantage if you accept. And if the other side offers peace because the war score is in their favor, I will simply decline your peace offer since my military is about to take your capital.

 

[Amrunril]

It sounds like some posters are assuming that the war score mechanic will always allow you to force peace at any time. My understanding, though, is that both players still need to agree to peace, and the war score only determines what concessions this results in.

This seems like a perfectly reasonable system for player-AI wars (though I am a bit concerned about the possibility of having to accept garbage cities if you want to end a war you've won decisively). The AI will always use something resembling the war score mechanic, and making it visible just adds transparency without actually changing the underlying mechanics (much like the warmonger score mechanic in Civ V). I don't like the idea of this mechanic governing peace deals between human players, though. If both players want to accept a white peace, they should be able to do that without being constrained by a system designed primarily to control AI behavior. I'm sure it's possible to rationalize these constraints as the views of your people, but there's no point in doing so unless the mechanic actually adds immersion and/or interesting gameplay, and I'm not convinced that using war scores in human-human wars does this.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

It sounds like some posters are assuming that the war score mechanic will always allow you to force peace at any time. My understanding, though, is that both players still need to agree to peace, and the war score only determines what concessions this results in.

Yes, you got it. The war score window does not automatically force peace, it simply shows you what you would gain or lose if you sue for peace. Note, there was the dialogue option to sue for peace below the war score that the player needs to click on in order to actually offer peace. And both sides still need to agree to peace.

 

[Alkaid]

If you sue for peace the turn after declaring war, your war score will be 0-0 or low enough that you will only get a "white peace" where neither side gets anything. So, you will have lost any agreements and get nothing from the peace. So, there is no advantage to suing for peace the turn after your declar war, unless you are strong that you are able to capture a couple of cities in a single turn to get a big war score. I think we saw in one preview that even a war score in your favor of 100-0 still gets you a "white peace", ie nothing. So, your war score has to be really high (probably at least capturing an enemy city) if you hope to get anything from making peace.

I get the feeling you won't be able to try for peace instantly like that, and that more factors will be present. If it works that way, you could position so you can declare war, bag a city, and sue for at least a white peace right away. What if the AI had a huge army a little ways off that would of otherwise came and crashed into you, but never gets to because you can peace out before retaliation? With that system and a bit of luck/planning, you could declare > cap a city > peace, and repeat as you crawl through their territory/chunk off parts of it without letting them press on with a counterattack.

I just think we don't know enough to say for sure yet, because I don't think the above being plausible is something they'd let happen. They were focusing on explaining the war score mechanics, but there might be other elements at work that factor into how things work out as well.

Edit: Looks like I was ninja'd. Agreed that forcing peace easily or at will is unlikely.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

What if the AI had a huge army a little ways off that would of otherwise came and crashed into you, but never gets to because you can peace out before retaliation? With that system and a bit of luck/planning, you could declare > cap a city > peace, and repeat as you crawl through their territory/chunk off parts of it without letting them press on with a counterattack.

Both sides need to agree to peace. Hopefully, the AI will be programmed not to agree to peace when it has a viable means to counter attack.

 

[Acken]

If the AI doesn't agree because it has a strong force waiting I see very little difference with the current system.