War Support; Tubman; Suing for Peace

[sixty4half]

Tubman seems too easy to play.

Do things to piss your neighbors off while building up a military. Settle close. Go against their traits. Greet Hostile. Maybe build Gate of All Nations.

Get declared war on. Push all Influence to war support. Kill all the early attackers. Sweep the continent and wipe all evidence of their existence from the map.

It just feels to easy.

I propose that Suing for Peace, if declined, should push War Support towards the person Suing for Peace. This would at least give the defender (aggressor?) a chance. How else is the AI supposed to fight back? It like a dirty trick that's to easy to set up.

You activated my Trap Card!

 

[Leyrann]

Then you would have to limit how often you can sue for peace.

Also, you'd have to regulate things like ridiculous peace deals. What if I keep suing for peace if you just give me 5 out of your 7 settlements? Why would that get me war support for ""looking for peace""?

 

[sixty4half]

I believe there are already limits on how often you can sue. I think it's 10 or 15 turns later but I could be wrong. If that's not already implemented then yes; there would need to be a cap.

When the AI sues for Peace I get the option of putting cities in the deal. I've never had an AI Peace Deal with preloaded cities.

Maybe it's a system where asking for cities changes the formula for how the war support changes if declined.

Something has to change because right now having 10 war support is to easy to get and makes war easier than it should be.

 

[Gen.Washington]

War support needs to be fleshed out in general.

 

[sixty4half]

The more I think about this the more I belive that War Support shouldn't be a scale that's balanced between the two nations and should be a meter that each nation can fill on its own. Makes no sense that one players +10 War support at home should mean the other player has -10.

A meter that has a built in decay. Say 10 or 15 turns. That could be scaled or adjusted based on your units being in domestic territory or being in foreign territory.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

The more I think about this the more I belive that War Support shouldn't be a scale that's balanced between the two nations and should be a meter that each nation can fill on its own. Makes no sense that one players +10 War support at home should mean the other player has -10.

I think that conceptually it's not meant to be the support your citizens have for the war, but the support you have from the global community. Hence, using the diplomacy currency to alter it and other Civilizations being able to alter it directly with their own Influence.

 

[GeneralZift]

I don't understand why War Support really needs to be a mechanic. Casus Belli, Denounce before Formal War, it all seems like pointless layers to war that don't need to be there.
I suppose, it's to combat the surprise war all-the-time mechanics in the older games but still
If they ever rework that system, I'd want them to go with something more lenient and relevant.

War Support could work this: when you declare war you gain support based on the relationship between you and your opponent.
So -60 relationship would be +60 war support. Then, your support would dwindle slowly over time due to War Weariness - this amount will differ depending on if you're winning or losing the war, your global happiness, and whether or not your cities are being attacked (a far away war will deplete support slower than a close war).

However, the game would remember the state of Weariness your cities are in, and when you declare war again, the starting support will be preemptively diminished.

You could regain support via propaganda projects, OR automatically gaining Casus Belli (No need to activate, once you meet the conditions, your War Support goes up for Free).

What happens when your War Support hits 0? Well, nothing. At first, then the more it drops below 0, you get penalties to Combat Strength and Global Happiness. Pretty simple.

It won't force you to sue for peace or anything like that, after all, I believe from a design perspective that forced diplomatic actions feel gamey and unrealistic. Well, you could fight to the very last soldier even if your public feels the war is unjust. However, the penalties of negative happiness and combat strength would be high enough to simply ENCOURAGE the Player to sue for Peace, potentially under terrible terms for the Player in some cases.

This way, you cover all the spots that the current systems cover but without too many layers in the front, and all the layers are in the back. Intuitive and immersive no?

 

[Leyrann]

I don't understand why War Support really needs to be a mechanic. Casus Belli, Denounce before Formal War, it all seems like pointless layers to war that don't need to be there.

You need to look no further than the Russian invasion of Ukraine to understand how important the international stage can be to the development of a conflict.

War Support could work this: when you declare war you gain support based on the relationship between you and your opponent.
So -60 relationship would be +60 war support.

So that would make it a race who can declare war first? The relationship is a single value shared between both sides, after all.

(a far away war will deplete support slower than a close war)

And yet some of the most supported wars are one where a country is directly attacked by another.

 

[reddishrecue]

I agree with you. I tried this strategy with Harriet Tubman as well and stole technologies and did mischief and what not and pissed off the neighbor. Eventually I still had to declare war because the neighbor wouldn't declare war or do anything and I took a town and even though I lost it, it was a good run. I had taken the city and lost it on the last turn of antiquity... lol

 

[stealth_nsk]

War support is extremely important mechanics in Civ7 diplomacy. We finally have mechanics which work equally well in single player and multiplayer games.

 

[GeneralZift]

You need to look no further than the Russian invasion of Ukraine to understand how important the international stage can be to the development of a conflict.

I didn't say the concept is bad, I'm saying the execution seems unnecessary. Obviously it's based in some reality so there's some merit to put in.

So that would make it a race who can declare war first? The relationship is a single value shared between both sides, after all.

No, both players would gain War Support separately, separate bars, depending on their relationships with each other and 'Casus Belli' is redeemed automatically. Then it depletes due to War Weariness and other factors, having effects on combat and happiness. That seems to me the easiest way to do it without adding too many unnecessary layers.
Diplomatically, players would be able to sponsor a player's war support but this model of war support has a bar for each player, not one single bar

EDIT: So you could even theoretically support both sides of a war's support to encourage the war to stay ongoing for your own nefarious needs

And yet some of the most supported wars are one where a country is directly attacked by another.

Yes. And in my model this would constitute a 'Casus Belli' bonus, but at the same time, War Support will deplete faster in a country who is losing cities and people very quickly than in a country who is not. That is, balanced out by the fact that the Defensive player usually has Defensive War Support bonuses. But it's supposed to represent the will of the people and how you would theoretically be able to whittle it down to try to encourage surrender.

For example, dropping a nuclear bomb would kill lots of people and drop the War Support of the country who gets hit by it. Then that country fights less effectively and suffers negative happiness. So then they're more likely to surrender for peace. It's a simple effective system no?

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

Tubman absolutely needs a nerf. +5 war support is total overkill.

Also, I don't know if she is deliberately over-tuned or what, but she is ALWAYS running away with science and civics in my games for no apparent reason.

 

[Yzman]

I don't understand why War Support really needs to be a mechanic. Casus Belli, Denounce before Formal War, it all seems like pointless layers to war that don't need to be there.
I suppose, it's to combat the surprise war all-the-time mechanics in the older games but still
If they ever rework that system, I'd want them to go with something more lenient and relevant.

War Support could work this: when you declare war you gain support based on the relationship between you and your opponent.
So -60 relationship would be +60 war support. Then, your support would dwindle slowly over time due to War Weariness - this amount will differ depending on if you're winning or losing the war, your global happiness, and whether or not your cities are being attacked (a far away war will deplete support slower than a close war).

However, the game would remember the state of Weariness your cities are in, and when you declare war again, the starting support will be preemptively diminished.

You could regain support via propaganda projects, OR automatically gaining Casus Belli (No need to activate, once you meet the conditions, your War Support goes up for Free).

What happens when your War Support hits 0? Well, nothing. At first, then the more it drops below 0, you get penalties to Combat Strength and Global Happiness. Pretty simple.

It won't force you to sue for peace or anything like that, after all, I believe from a design perspective that forced diplomatic actions feel gamey and unrealistic. Well, you could fight to the very last soldier even if your public feels the war is unjust. However, the penalties of negative happiness and combat strength would be high enough to simply ENCOURAGE the Player to sue for Peace, potentially under terrible terms for the Player in some cases.

This way, you cover all the spots that the current systems cover but without too many layers in the front, and all the layers are in the back. Intuitive and immersive no?

I like how you said it was a mechanic that doesn't need to exist and then made a post with something that sounds way more complicated.

 

[GeneralZift]

I like how you said it was a mechanic that doesn't need to exist and then made a post with something that sounds way more complicated.

I don't remember what I wrote, but I probably explained it needlessly extensively and confusingly to be honest.

I think the main idea is just instead of global war support bar for a specific war, you just have a war support bar for each participant in the war.
Then you can support the participants instead of the 'side'.
That way both participants can have 'positive' war support for a war.

 

[UWHabs]

Tubman absolutely needs a nerf. +5 war support is total overkill.

Also, I don't know if she is deliberately over-tuned or what, but she is ALWAYS running away with science and civics in my games for no apparent reason.

I'm sure she'll get updated in the balance. Even +3 would probably be more than fine, either that or give her like a flat +25% influence bonus on propping up war support. Or give her the big war support, but give her a penalty as well so that every captured city gives your opponent like +2 war support, so that the +5 in reality only works as a defensive bonus you can't swing in and wipe out someone out with that bonus.

 

[Taefin]

I'm sure she'll get updated in the balance. Even +3 would probably be more than fine, either that or give her like a flat +25% influence bonus on propping up war support. Or give her the big war support, but give her a penalty as well so that every captured city gives your opponent like +2 war support, so that the +5 in reality only works as a defensive bonus you can't swing in and wipe out someone out with that bonus.

I like the idea of her war support bonus only working if used defensively. Perhaps to capture her theme of creative defense of her civs freedom, the bonus could be reduced based on the number of settlements she owns but did not found (or integrate?), perhaps resetting with age to align with other similar mechanics in an age. This way her ability would also reflect respecting other civs freedom as well.

It feels very off that her gameplay is to make other civs angry through espionage to take advantage of them declaring war.