Small news from devs about war score

[SupremacyKing2]

In the firaxis twitch live stream today, Pete gave a small update about the war score:

Pete: I did want to give you guys an update. We've seen a lot of people asking questions about things in the game, particularly the way wars are resolved with the current war score system. The guys are working on something.It is going to be based on the differential in war scores and we will have an update for you soon, I hope.

I bolded the interesting part. It seems like the devs are going to make the differential in war scores more important. I am hoping that this means that there will be lots of different peace terms.

 

[aguliondew]

I would prefer if the AI gives you something other than cities. Like temporary diplomacy traits, gold or some other option. Instead of their armies being no match and you take all of their empire if they surrender.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Good to hear.

I'm willing to accept a middle ground between the illusion of complete choice and a limited selection of fixed offers.

For instance, choose one:

• White peace
• Energy
• Science
• Culture
• City (or cities)

The amount of resources or cities ceded would be calculated according to the war score difference. In the case of white peace, it'd provide a respect boost with the other faction, proportional to the aforementioned differential.

Perhaps you could pick more than one option, at the cost of diluting the total reward (plain illustrative example: 100 gold or 50 gold and 50 culture).

And for it all to mean something, the AI would always accept, in part because the system would produce reasonable choices, given the circumstances.

 

[Sherlock]

This was a deal breaker for me - still haven't bought this game. I hope they come up with a good fix.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'd be fine if Cities and "you must accept"
Were the only things involved, if you got to choose the cities (based on a cost factor)
(And the remainder was credited as diplo capital)

 

[Lord Shadow]

I'd be fine if Cities and "you must accept"
Were the only things involved, if you got to choose the cities (based on a cost factor)
(And the remainder was credited as diplo capital)

I had forgotten about Diplomatic Capital.

Frankly, for the moment I'd be happy with a white peace option at all times. It's uncommon and very situational for me to want free cities.

 

[Maximus_Light]

Really all we need is:
1. For the AI to accept demands after a certain difference in warscore and for it to be made apparent what the value of said demands needs to be for it to happen.
2. The ability to negotiate for what we want, like diplo, energy, cities, and so on.

(although some kind of bartering system being in the game at all would be a first step)

 

[Olodune]

Right now there are two ways to fight the AI: defensively - which should eventually lead to a white peace, or a war of (near) total annihilation. I don't particularly mind that choice, but the UI certainly is misleading about the actual mechanics

A warscore system is generally going to favor a human player so heavily (in 1UPT) that I don't think it will make for a very good system if there are consistent profitable war spoils. Especially without a warmonger style diplomatic penalty. Peace settlements based on current army strengths is less gameable by a decent player while scaling more reasonably to higher difficulties.

We will see what they come up with.

 

[Halbbruder]

I refer to my suggestion of adding one-sided "agreements" for peace deals as alternative to grabbing cities.

 

[Callonia]

I found it pretty embarrassing to look at the war score.. its usually something like this..

Me: 3432 vs AI 0

Who won't be embarrassed by such one sided stomping >.> Personally what I tend to do is if they start up crap with me and waste my time defeating their terribly tiny army, I will make sure to wipe them out to silence their noise forever.

And the AI acts like they're doing great. lol

 

[Furycrab]

I found it pretty embarrassing to look at the war score.. its usually something like this..

Me: 3432 vs AI 0

Who won't be embarrassed by such one sided stomping >.> Personally what I tend to do is if they start up crap with me and waste my time defeating their terribly tiny army, I will make sure to wipe them out to silence their noise forever.

And the AI acts like they're doing great. lol

From my experience, the AI doesn't act like it's doing great, it's just stuck in a situation where the Warscore system is basically asking for it to give up nothing short of everything they own, including it's capital if you took the original one. So it's just stuck with options it's programmed not to take.

You also can't leave stuff on the table if you are the victor, nor is there any middle ground between having to give up a city and white peace.

I personally like the basic idea behind the system. It's just really rough around the edges right now. I really hope they don't go full 180 though. I'd rather not go back to fully defeated AIs becoming some weird bank. A real player wouldn't give up basically everything else (energy/science/whatever) just to save cities they know the player who beat them doesn't want to take.

 

[Callonia]

From my experience, the AI doesn't act like it's doing great, it's just stuck in a situation where the Warscore system is basically asking for it to give up nothing short of everything they own, including it's capital if you took the original one. So it's just stuck with options it's programmed not to take.

You also can't leave stuff on the table if you are the victor, nor is there any middle ground between having to give up a city and white peace.

I personally like the basic idea behind the system. It's just really rough around the edges right now. I really hope they don't go full 180 though. I'd rather not go back to fully defeated AIs becoming some weird bank. A real player wouldn't give up basically everything else (energy/science/whatever) just to save cities they know the player who beat them doesn't want to take.

Ahh no wonder why, well i Civ 5, I usually let the defeated Civs keep their cities even when they put their cities into the peace treaty voluntarily. Exception is when I really need that city badly. Because I think of what I will accept and will not accept on the treaty when it's handed to me on my ass for when I'm defeated. Although if they do that, I take it as a sign that they recognize their defeat and I ask for something else instead of cities. It could be gold, gpt, or luxuries or anything else.

Cuz I recognize that losing cities is a huge setback for anyone.

 

[NukeAJS]

I think the following would make it fixed, workable, sensical, and fun:

--Basics--
--The loser MUST accept something, up to a minimum. This minimum increases based upon a larger war score differential. To make things simple, the minimum would be the raw difference between war scores.
--War score slowly decays after 5 turns (an example) of nothing happening. The reasoning behind this is that if you haven't had actual combat after 5 turns, the enemy is perceived as less and less of a threat.
--The winner doesn't have to demand up to the minimum. If the winner wants white peace (or something less than the minimum), they can always get it.
--The loser CAN refuse more than the minimum, or change the peace deal.
--If the loser starts the peace negotiations, the cost of the minimum is increased by 10% (just brainstorming). This is because it seems desperate. The winners clearly have a diplomatic advantage when the loser wants to declare peace.
--A player can never lose their original capital via peace negotiations; however, a player CAN get their original capital back via peace negotiations. This doesn't apply to interim capitals; they can be traded.

--Terms of peace--
--Peace "trades" are expanded. Meaning cities, science, energy, diplo, resources etc. are acceptable "trades" from negotiation.
--For everything but cities, the maximum duration is 30 turns.
--Peace must last at least ten turns.
--Each item demanded by the winner or offered by the loser has a cost. EX: 1 diplo capital per turn is worth 20 war score; a size 5 city costs 500 (just an example).

There's a couple of other things I'd like to see, but I think this is basically what most people would like to see. I really hope this is what is in the works because I think the war score isn't a completely bad idea. I just think it's very poorly implemented.

 

[Callonia]

Well NukeAJS, I was ambushed by the AI one time and then china quickly popped up and offered me a peace treaty in exchange of giving her two more cities. I flatout rejected her because I know I can take the city back in few more turns.

I just will never accept a snipe + peace treaty for them to keep their gains because I don't give stuff up without a fight.

And then as the fight progressed, the war eventually swung into my favor and I was the one doing the invading then the AI offered me two cities of her own.

 

[Promethian]

I like the idea of diplomatic agreements to the winner as a possible payout from war. If I am winning in war score by enough let me take a diplo agreement from my opponent as a reward.

Here is how I propose these war claimed agreements should act:

Duration is determined as part of the negotiation with war score as a consideration.
No diplo cost.
Maximum possible effect (as if fully allied) for the duration.
If war restarts, war agreements are suspended but existing time on war agreements is remembered and reinstated when war ends.
If you wipe out a faction you get a permanent war agreement from them.

I'd even include a kind of trading system with a peace agreement. If I take a city in a war and we begin peace negotiations I can offer to return the city and get more agreements or more time on the agreement(s).

I thought of this because the current diplo system strongly encourages us to be peaceful. If I want one of those powerful agreements I have to somehow make the other person like me. My suggestion gives us a counterbalancing incentive to use war as a means of getting agreements as well.