The war mechanics (and why Civ II did it better)

[Walter E Kurtz]

Let me start by saying English is not my native language and I'm no CIV 5 "pro". I play on Immortal and win maybe half of my games lately.

Historically fast conquest has proven to be possible with good benefits to the aggressor. In CIV 5 it doesn't work this way. A blitzkrieg is impossible. You'll go into -20 happiness if you move too fast. And even if you deliberately slow down your conquests, happiness is the biggest limiting factor on war. Even if you focus all your efforts on happiness (religion, buildings, policies) you'll struggle to stay positive.

The effects of unhappiness are that you lose large amounts of growth and science. Probably for the bettter part of the game. To make it worse your soldiers become weak, useless fools when your empire is unhappy. These effects don't reflect the real world and are, in my humble opinion, flawed by design.

There are "solutions" that are just as artificial. Like razing cities that don't give you a new unique resource. I don't think I need to explain myself when I say there is something wrong with this. The people of a foreign country you invaded shouldn't be happier because I just killed off half the population. This mechanic leads to other issues like civs settling bad cities in the few free hexes between your puppets.

In BNW things have gotten worse on the happiness front. On higher difficulties there's a good chance you haven't built up your culture enough. This means you'll suffer from pressure. I'm not saying that BNW nerfed warmongering into uselessness, like others claim. I'm not saying that you can't be aggressive. You definately can. My problem is the way the game handles the negative effects of war. I'd like to hear your thoughts on how this could be changed. For example.

1. No effect on happiness with the right ideology. Unhappiness from war should depend on the ideology of your country (like fundamentalism gave you a "free pass" in CIV II or III - can't remember) and the reason for the war (you were attacked not vice versa).

2. Force the warmonger to actively spend money and military power on the occupied territory. This is realistic. For example -5% gold for every occupied city (money for repairs, installing new officials etc.), rebels who may also destroy buildings in cities and the requirement to station at least one modern military unit in the city.

3. Lose production in the home state, not growth, happiness or science. Because as is the case in the real world, wars tend to take away resources from other manufacturing processes in favor of things needed for the war (materials as well as manpower).

 

[Bibor]

Happiness shouldn't be an issue. Among other preparations for war, having around +10 to +20 happiness is pretty much mandatory. Trading back cities to the loosing side also works great (especially crappy ones). You can also trade cities to other civs. Or you could simply raze them, that works too.

 

[Greizer85]

Happiness shouldn't be an issue. Among other preparations for war, having around +10 to +20 happiness is pretty much mandatory. Trading back cities to the loosing side also works great (especially crappy ones). You can also trade cities to other civs. Or you could simply raze them, that works too.

Did you even read his post? How many Berliners do you think would be happy if Leipzig got razed?

I agree op that the happiness mechanic in Civ V is very flawed, even if I do think happiness is very manageable in the late game. I'd go so far as to say that success in war should *add* to your happiness in an Autocratic state. While in a Freedom-adopting civ an unprovoked DOW made by you should cause extreme unhappiness. And Order might be neutral in this regard. It would really serve to differentiate the Ideologies, make them more than just different stacks of bonuses.

 

[Walter E Kurtz]

I'd go so far as to say that success in war should *add* to your happiness in an Autocratic state. While in a Freedom-adopting civ an unprovoked DOW made by you should cause extreme unhappiness. And Order might be neutral in this regard. It would really serve to differentiate the Ideologies, make them more than just different stacks of bonuses.

Ideology is an afterthought in Civ 5, just another tree with little perks.

Previous installments of Civ did it better, although it's been 15 years since Civ II.

edit: I looked it up:

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Civilization_II/Government

 

[Ulthwithian]

Without trying to sound belligerent, why not just play Civ II if you prefer its mechanics to those of CiV?

Completely avoiding the flavor arguments, the Happiness system is in place to directly slow down the pace of military conquest. It has other uses, but for the present discussion, that is its purpose. Saying that you don't like its purpose (as opposed to its implementation) seems to point that you should look into other games where the purpose of the mechanics matches your view of those purposes.

 

[Bibor]

Did you even read his post? How many Berliners do you think would be happy if Leipzig got razed?.

Tell that to citizens of Warsaw, Stalingrad, Carthage...

 

[Walter E Kurtz]

Without trying to sound belligerent, why not just play Civ II if you prefer its mechanics to those of CiV?

Why not look at the past and try to use it to your advantage? That's what learning is about.

Completely avoiding the flavor arguments, the Happiness system is in place to directly slow down the pace of military conquest. It has other uses, but for the present discussion, that is its purpose. Saying that you don't like its purpose (as opposed to its implementation) seems to point that you should look into other games where the purpose of the mechanics matches your view of those purposes.

I never said there shouldn't be negative consequences for waging war. To the contrary, the point of this thread is to discuss how to implement these negative effects in a better and more realistic way.

Tell that to citizens of Warsaw, Stalingrad, Carthage...

You didn't quite understand the OP. You used razing as an example of how to fix the happiness issue. Which is irrelevant to the discussion (I'm not saying I need help to overcome the happiness penalties, I'm saying the current system is artificial and wrong).

But now you're losing me completey. What point are you trying to make?

 

[Ulthwithian]

Why not look at the past and try to use it to your advantage? That's what learning is about.

Because there is limited to no continuity in the actual game engines, or in the design goals of the design teams making these games.

They deliberately designed the game, and specifically the Happiness system, to do what is being argued against here: your Happiness goes down as you gain cities through conquest. As such, I think that you are fighting headwinds too big to fight, in that you are fighting stated design goals for the game.

The only way to 'fix' this without contravening the design goals is to track Happiness at a local rather than global level, and this contravenes another design goal, being that Happiness is a strategic system rather than a tactical system.

I never said there shouldn't be negative consequences for waging war. To the contrary, the point of this thread is to discuss how to implement these negative effects in a better and more realistic way.

You are assuming agreement to another argument that 'more realistic' is 'better'. You are also assuming that everyone agrees that the system as currently existing in the game is 'not realistic'.

Given that the system is strategic (a design decision I find it unlikely to change, to say the least), I think the system is quite realistic, and I therefore don't agree with your premise.

Basically, I don't think you can remove these issues from CiV and have it still be CiV, and therefore suggest that you might be happier playing a game that models this differently.

 

[Walter E Kurtz]

Because there is limited to no continuity in the actual game engines, or in the design goals of the design teams making these games.

That seems like a wild statement. Civ is a continuation of similar games. The basics remain the same and different ingredients get sprinkled on.

As such, I think that you are fighting headwinds too big to fight, in that you are fighting stated design goals for the game.

If you read carefully I'm not suggesting to change anything (right now), I'm interrested in discussion on how it might be improved.

You are assuming agreement to another argument that 'more realistic' is 'better'. You are also assuming that everyone agrees that the system as currently existing in the game is 'not realistic'.

If you like artificial limits that have no clear basis in reality, fine. Same goes for the ideology implementation that seems redundant (we already had religion and social policies) or an extension of the tourism game at best. Like I said previous games did it better, in my opinion. A word that I, deliberately, use a lot in this thread. Perhaps this quote can lighten up the mood.

That's just like, your opinion, man.

~The Dude ca. 1998

Basically, I don't think you can remove these issues from CiV and have it still be CiV, and therefore suggest that you might be happier playing a game that models this differently.

Again, fine. I'm looking for interresting opinions and discussion. Nothing more. I'm not one of those current generation type gamers that come onto forums just to whine and yell about how the game should suit THEIR needs because they feel entitled.

 

[MarshalN]

As someone who clocked probably a few thousand hours on Civ2....

The Civ2 war system was completely broken. I would play deity, and I would not wage a single war until I hit fundamentalism. I'd usually bend over backwards to keep the AI happy and not DOW me. The government progression was despotism, monarchy, democracy (for teching) and then fundamentalism. At that point, I would also have armor researched. Then, I switch to fundamentalism, pump out a dozen armors, declare war on my first target, and I will go on until the game was finished. There would be no break in the war.

If I ever wanted to wage a war in democracy - I couldn't. It had crippling war penalties. Happiness in cities was terrible, and after a few turns of war your empire would be at a standstill. Republic was a little better, but not much better. The only viable, war government in the late game was fundamentalism.

Yes, happiness was local, so unless you were running republic or democracy, you could fight a war and keep going, but the game was designed so you couldn't, because if you stayed in monarchy for most of the game you'd be hopelessly behind in tech and money. You had to switch to one of those two, which means you had to deal with a slowdown in war until, again, fundamentalism showed up.

You mean to tell me that is more realistic? Please. I'll take the Civ5 system any day.

Yes, there were people who could finish a deity game really fast and stay in monarchy all game long, but like the Zerg rush in Starcraft, that's just a formula for how to beat the game with (IIRC) horsemen.

 

[Walter E Kurtz]

Thanks for your contribution. Always nice to meet people who have the same long Civ history. Now, I thnk you missed the part where I explained it in the bigger picture. I'm not saying "replace the war system of Civ 5 with Civ 2".

Besides I referenced Civ II because I remembered the governement implementation, and Fundamentalism stuck because it was good for warmongering, but I hardly have the specifics on hand even though I too had a good numbers of hours in there -- it's been 15 years you know. I was still in high school back then.

It seems I went about this topic all wrong. This thread died during birth. So sad.

 

[MarshalN]

Your basic complaint seems to be that the current system artificially stopped you from warmongering. I think what you really don't like is the name - happiness.

If they renamed it "war supplies" and have it reflect an empire's ability to project power, maybe you'll feel better about it - and change luxuries to something like "war supplies" or something. If you run out of supplies, you can only wage war at a reduced rate (and have to ration food/supplies at home, which lowers growth)

Better?

So, maybe when you play this game, just imagine you're playing with war supplies instead of happiness. Problem solved.

 

[Walter E Kurtz]

I proposed different penalties altogether. Reduced production, gold cost for uccupied territory and required unit presence mainly. This is fundamentally different from crippling a healthy empire's science and growth, have rebels appear around the capital and flipping cities in the middle of your empire.

 

[Snuffleupagus]

Your basic complaint seems to be that the current system artificially stopped you from warmongering. I think what you really don't like is the name - happiness.

If they renamed it "war supplies" and have it reflect an empire's ability to project power, maybe you'll feel better about it - and change luxuries to something like "war supplies" or something. If you run out of supplies, you can only wage war at a reduced rate (and have to ration food/supplies at home, which lowers growth)

Better?

So, maybe when you play this game, just imagine you're playing with war supplies instead of happiness. Problem solved.

I agree with this. Although happiness isn't just 'war supplies' in my mind, it's just empire resources available to placate the populace. As you spread out, the resources you have to keep people content becomes frayed.

This seems perfectly realistic to me. As empires expand they begin to buckle under their own weight, the mechanic to represent this in Civ V is happiness.

You say that the blitzkrieg has been effective in history, but I'm not so sure it has. It has worked exactly like it does in Civ, where it is effective at first, but can quickly collapse under its own weight.

As for happiness goign up when you burn down a city, this does feel odd, but it's more about concentration of resources. People in city A aren't "happy" about city B being burned to the ground - but the conquering empire has more resources available to focus on city A and keep people in line.

I also tend to think of razing of occupied cities more as 'dismantling' than murdering everyone. You kill half the population of a city when you conquer it, but from that point on can only kill one citizen per turn? In my mind it is because the city is slowly being effectively evacuated and dismantled for need of resources.

 

[MarshalN]

Rebels only show up late game if you have the wrong ideology and your people want something else. I think that part, at least, is quite realistic - just look at Egypt, or Syria, or any of those places where the ruled don't want to be ruled the way they are.

Your solutions are no more "realistic" than the current ones. How does war reduce production, for example? Wouldn't in fact the opposite be true? Why would occupied territory cost gold AND require more units? If I conquered a territory I will be looting it and thus gaining gold, especially if I have a unit stationed there to keep peace. So..... you are really just replacing one version of abstraction with your own.

 

[poom3619]

Okay.
Replace "Happiness" with "Stability"

Problem solved!

 

[Walter E Kurtz]

As empires expand they begin to buckle under their own weight, the mechanic to represent this in Civ V is happiness.

You say that the blitzkrieg has been effective in history, but I'm not so sure it has.

I can see where you're coming from.

But history proves there have been enough large empires that we regard to be huge successes, many of whom are represented in this game. Their collapse was, as far as I know, never a direct result of the expansion. Rather a result of factors afterwards. In Civ you are directly punished for gaining territory.

Blitzkrieg was invented by the Germans and is relatively new, but relatively speaking the Romans expanded pretty quick too. They spent the larger part of their history decreasing in size.

Rebels only show up late game if you have the wrong ideology and your people want something else. I think that part, at least, is quite realistic - just look at Egypt, or Syria, or any of those places where the ruled don't want to be ruled the way they are.

Point taken.

Your solutions are no more "realistic" than the current ones. How does war reduce production, for example? Wouldn't in fact the opposite be true? Why would occupied territory cost gold AND require more units? If I conquered a territory I will be looting it and thus gaining gold, especially if I have a unit stationed there to keep peace. So..... you are really just replacing one version of abstraction with your own.

I'm only looking for discussion on how this might be better designed. Please share your insights on that! As for your questions on production I refer to the OP. For the gold and unit for peace, you could point at the fact that the USA spent what, $ 1 trillion on Iraq, while also requiring a huge military presence Yes you get money too but you have to spend some as well. I never proposed there be no income from occupied land and the current trade post system on puppets provides just that.

 

[MarshalN]

I think empires buckle under their own weight, and expansion is costly. There are different ways to reflect that, but one of them is the way the Civ5 designers did. I don't have a problem with how they did it. Part of the reason I don't mind it is because by scattering luxuries around the world, you can actually GAIN happiness by expanding, if you choose your targets judiciously.

So if you grow indiscriminately in this game, then yeah, you'll run into problems, but if you only hit the places that are juicy, then no, you won't.

The previous mechanic in past Civ games was corruption - corruption killed big empires by rendering the cities useless even after you capture them. So the solution to that was to raze everything. It's really not so different now.

 

[rondiggity]

Would you prefer they bring back the huge stacks of doom? That was blitzkrieg in a nut shell.

 

[Arazok]

There’s lots of factors in a real life war that aren’t reflected in Civ. From a warmongers perspective, I see how happiness makes no sense. Perhaps if you looked at happiness as your ability to run supply lines, it would make more sense. Expand to fast, and lose the ability to feed your army effectively.

It’s just a label, but the purpose remains the same. To slow you down. Once you knock out an enemy army in this game, it’s way to easy to just run through and gobble up everything. That isn’t fun, and happiness is designed to slow you down and give your opponent a bit of space to regroup.

Seeing that in WWII over extended supply lines and the drag it caused his armies is what led to Hitler’s defeat in Russia, it’s somewhat realistic – just mislabeled.

I do think that in BNW there needs to be more happiness in the early game to help warmongers enjoy the game, but mid/late game it seems pretty balanced.