Undeclared war

[Bellringer]

I don't think killing someone first and then declaring war is very sporting. First declare war and then attack in the next turn. Otherwise, atleast, there should be a heavy diplomatic penalty if you must allow attacking in this cowardly manner.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Huh? What do you mean?

 

[Skwink]

Well I kinda like this idea. You mean like how Japan attacked the USA without a DOW? That would make wars a lot harder, and you'd have to keep your army ready all the time. Never know when they will attack.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Well I kinda like this idea. You mean like how Japan attacked the USA without a DOW? That would make wars a lot harder, and you'd have to keep your army ready all the time. Never know when they will attack.

I think he's saying the opposite.

 

[Sonereal]

I don't think killing someone first and then declaring war is very sporting. First declare war and then attack in the next turn. Otherwise, atleast, there should be a heavy diplomatic penalty if you must allow attacking in this cowardly manner.

No, it actually makes sense. After all, Japan wouldn't declare war in 875 AD then not attack until 900 AD. War isn't about being sporting, it's about winning and it isn't cowardly. It just means the nation about to go down wasn't prepared for what was coming which is their loss.

 

[awesome]

yeah, not being able to attack until a turn after you declare war takes away the element of surprise. i mean, that's basically saying, "hey, we're going to attack you...but, um...yeah, you go first."

 

[GhostWriter16]

yeah, not being able to attack until a turn after you declare war takes away the element of surprise. i mean, that's basically saying, "hey, we're going to attack you...but, um...yeah, you go first."

I agree with this.

Going into their borders, under open borders treaty, and then declaring war and attacking should have diplo penalty but should be allowed. Physically restricting things like Civ 4 is really stupid and annoying.

 

[TheDS]

yeah, not being able to attack until a turn after you declare war takes away the element of surprise. i mean, that's basically saying, "hey, we're going to attack you...but, um...yeah, you go first."

It's called either having honor or having a sense of decency.

Do you just quit your job out of the blue, or do you give them 2 weeks' notice? The latter lets you have a good reference for the next job, the former doesn't.

If you're about to lose your job, which generates greater resentment: being terminated without warning, or being given a couple weeks to look for a new one?

Who do you have more respect for: the guy in the bell tower who opens fire on everyone without warning, or the guy who phones in a bomb threat so the building can be evacuated first?

How much less dastardly would the Japanese have seemed if their declaration had been delivered at the proper time, and Pearl Harbor had had a few minutes to prepare for attack? Better yet, why did the Japanese bother to try to issue their declaration BEFORE the attack? Why bother to declare at all? Wouldn't we have figured out we were at war when they invaded California?

Do you prefer the bouncer throw you out of the bar without any warning, or to let you know at least once that you're breaking rules you weren't even aware of?

I could go on and on.

The point is, when we're attacked out of the blue, it's seen as evil and cowardly and there are greater repercussions for it than if we know something bad is coming. It used to be a matter of chivalry to declare war and allow the enemy a day or two to gather his forces. Only uncivilized barbarians attacked without warning. The Japanese were reviled by friend and enemy alike during their industrialization/modernization phase last century because they'd attack without warning. Any kind of surprise attack is seen as especially evil.

And there should be an in-game penalty if you choose to behave in a reviled way, just as there are penalties in real life.

And just like nuking everyone at the end of the game doesn't matter, so too will it not matter if you're the biggest kid on the block.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

It's called WAR. If you're going to do something as evil as that, being nice about it won't do anything except cause your people to die.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's called either having honor or having a sense of decency.

Do you just quit your job out of the blue, or do you give them 2 weeks' notice? The latter lets you have a good reference for the next job, the former doesn't.

If you're about to lose your job, which generates greater resentment: being terminated without warning, or being given a couple weeks to look for a new one?

Who do you have more respect for: the guy in the bell tower who opens fire on everyone without warning, or the guy who phones in a bomb threat so the building can be evacuated first?

How much less dastardly would the Japanese have seemed if their declaration had been delivered at the proper time, and Pearl Harbor had had a few minutes to prepare for attack? Better yet, why did the Japanese bother to try to issue their declaration BEFORE the attack? Why bother to declare at all? Wouldn't we have figured out we were at war when they invaded California?

Do you prefer the bouncer throw you out of the bar without any warning, or to let you know at least once that you're breaking rules you weren't even aware of?

I could go on and on.

The point is, when we're attacked out of the blue, it's seen as evil and cowardly and there are greater repercussions for it than if we know something bad is coming. It used to be a matter of chivalry to declare war and allow the enemy a day or two to gather his forces. Only uncivilized barbarians attacked without warning. The Japanese were reviled by friend and enemy alike during their industrialization/modernization phase last century because they'd attack without warning. Any kind of surprise attack is seen as especially evil.

And there should be an in-game penalty if you choose to behave in a reviled way, just as there are penalties in real life.

And just like nuking everyone at the end of the game doesn't matter, so too will it not matter if you're the biggest kid on the block.

Well, if by "Penalities" you mean losing Trust, such as Civ 2, I'm for it. Anything else, no.

It's called WAR. If you're going to do something as evil as that, being nice about it won't do anything except cause your people to die.

Well, other Civs should look down on you, but that's life... It shouldn't be forbidden though,

 

[Souron]

I support a relation's hit, as long as it isn't permanent. Civ III's one mess up and you're reputation is toast was annoying.

 

[TheDS]

Mother Theresa and Ghandi are generally known as people who practice peace. It's hard to imagine them raising their fists in anger, even though sometimes that's necessary for survival. So long as you're unwilling to go to war, you have one reputation. If you go to war, though, you've got another, even if it's to support your friend. You wouldn't think of Ghandi or Theresa the same way if you discovered they had a hidden taste for violence, would you?

You should get some kind of counteracting bonus with that friend, but he's still going to know you're not unwilling to fight. Or to start fights. Or whatever. The reputation system in Civ3 wasn't too far wrong, it just didn't take the right things into account. I remember arguing about that way back then when someone griped that starting a war was a permanent demerit; well, you DID start a war, that SHOULD be remembered. Maybe partially forgiven, but never forgotten. Play more wargames with real people, and you'll start to see what I mean. You start to learn who breaks their word at the slightest sign of opportunity and who keeps their word. The computer should be able to do that within a given game. (Not across games, as we in real life will do; you should be able to start a game with a clean slate and try different tactics.)

 

[Frank Drebin]

No, it actually makes sense. After all, Japan wouldn't declare war in 875 AD then not attack until 900 AD. War isn't about being sporting, it's about winning and it isn't cowardly. It just means the nation about to go down wasn't prepared for what was coming which is their loss.

it's turns. your units needing 300 years to then reach their capital doesnt make a whole lot of sense either.

 

[evirus]

I don't think killing someone first and then declaring war is very sporting. First declare war and then attack in the next turn. Otherwise, atleast, there should be a heavy diplomatic penalty if you must allow attacking in this cowardly manner.

the only thing which stops a nation from doing "cowardly" things, is political pressure from other nations, hence the actions of Germany and Japan in world war two, i don't think you should reinvent the rules of reality simply so people "fight fair"

 

[TheDS]

That's exactly why I proposed (in my thread about this very same subject a few months ago) that there be diplomatic penalties with everyone you know if you conduct a surprise attack. Early in the game, when you don't know anybody, it doesn't matter, just like it currently doesn't matter much what Atilla the Hun did. Toward the end of the game, assuming you are the leader, it again doesn't matter, because who can stop you? (And really, this is the time the AIs need to try to stop you from winning.) But during the middle times, that relation hit can hurt.

I further proposed that you get the relations hit for sneak attacks even if you were bribed into the war. A backstabber is a backstabber, whether you paid him to be or not, and he'll turn on you if you turn your back to him.

 

[JonoLith]

It's called either having honor or having a sense of decency.

War is about neither of those things. It never has been, and it never will be. War is about seeing something you want, and taking it. You might call that having a lack of honor, or a lack of decency, but you might also lose wars.

 

[B-29 Bomber]

It's called either having honor or having a sense of decency.

Do you just quit your job out of the blue, or do you give them 2 weeks' notice? The latter lets you have a good reference for the next job, the former doesn't.

If you're about to lose your job, which generates greater resentment: being terminated without warning, or being given a couple weeks to look for a new one?

Who do you have more respect for: the guy in the bell tower who opens fire on everyone without warning, or the guy who phones in a bomb threat so the building can be evacuated first?

How much less dastardly would the Japanese have seemed if their declaration had been delivered at the proper time, and Pearl Harbor had had a few minutes to prepare for attack? Better yet, why did the Japanese bother to try to issue their declaration BEFORE the attack? Why bother to declare at all? Wouldn't we have figured out we were at war when they invaded California?

Do you prefer the bouncer throw you out of the bar without any warning, or to let you know at least once that you're breaking rules you weren't even aware of?

I could go on and on.

The point is, when we're attacked out of the blue, it's seen as evil and cowardly and there are greater repercussions for it than if we know something bad is coming. It used to be a matter of chivalry to declare war and allow the enemy a day or two to gather his forces. Only uncivilized barbarians attacked without warning. The Japanese were reviled by friend and enemy alike during their industrialization/modernization phase last century because they'd attack without warning. Any kind of surprise attack is seen as especially evil.

And there should be an in-game penalty if you choose to behave in a reviled way, just as there are penalties in real life.

And just like nuking everyone at the end of the game doesn't matter, so too will it not matter if you're the biggest kid on the block.

Actually the Japs did try to send a war declaration to Washington but their foreign ministers failed to send it. Admiral Yamamoto was to put it lightly pissed off. He actually said that: "I'm afraid all we've done is awaken a sleeping giant within America." In fact in a book I'm reading it had a quote from an unknown Jap Admiral "The Americans have Bushido."

 

[Dachs]

And here I thought that the OP was being sarcastic.

 

[Seaman Sample]

I don't think killing someone first and then declaring war is very sporting. First declare war and then attack in the next turn.

Morally, attacking a country (or a civilization in this case) without warning is fairly cowardly. However, this is a game, first and foremost. If you're going to take a game this seriously from a moral standpoint, then you seriously need to consider taking a look at yourself.

Otherwise, atleast, there should be a heavy diplomatic penalty if you must allow attacking in this cowardly manner

A diplomatic penalty isn't that too far-fetched. Whether or not it should be a "heavy" one is debatable.

War is about neither of those things. It never has been, and it never will be. War is about seeing something you want, and taking it. You might call that having a lack of honor, or a lack of decency, but you might also lose wars.

Agreed. War is both brutal and deadly. Why try to dress it up with false pretenses and formalities? And in a game, no less?

 

[Tyrael]

I agree. We should send people to slaugher and die for our nation's interests in an honorable way. I'm sure the extra casualties our troops will take will be accepted by their relatives as the price to pay for being honorable killers.