War weariness and war score: a clear problem.

[Rails646]

I also want to apologize to OP for hijacking his thread. His concerns are valid not only in OCC but other tall peaceful play and my posts made other people think otherwise.

Here is my understanding of his questions.What was the original reason for introducing this?
If the answer is stop/slow down war mongering, then it doesn't seem to achieve that. If you have proof that it does, we are happy to see and learn.
If this is to mirror the real life, I do not think this is solving that either as traditionally depending on the situations, the citizenry have responded differently to a given act of aggression. And most of it is actually in support of war at first due to nationalism/pride.
If there is an entirely different reason, please let us know.

This again has nothing to do with general balancing of wide vs tall on the whole. If G confirms that this indeed the behavior he wants, I will live with it as this is his mod. However you don't get to decide that.

@G, please do watch last couple of games by Martin Fencka, Minh Le before you give your answer that this is indeed stopping/slowing down warmongers (especially when a human player is present .. not just AI vs AI).

No worries mate. And thank you for contributing some equilibrium. This post isn't at all about desiring peaceful play to be "buffed" arbitrarily. But rather that it seems to have been counter-intuitively crippled by a change that is incorrectly skewed in certain factors (in practice) as well as perhaps being too strong in other circumstantial factors. Then a lot of lads start telling us that their idea of balance essentially means "there's only one right way the game should be played NOOB". I don't mean to generalise this comment, many of you have contributed meaningful arguments from both sides, but forgive me if I don't specifically distinguish you all. Particularly in Page 3 many of you did contribute more meaningful discussion/suggestions.

To be blunt to all the "noob-sayers": Not all of us want to be stuck into some obsessive-compulsive repetition of a single game-structure just because "it's the most efficient". Such a pathetically boring notion.

 

[civplayer33]

Yeah that kind of comment ought'a cool things down! No hyperbole or ad hominem there!

 

[Rails646]

Yeah that kind of comment ought'a cool things down! No hyperbole or ad hominem there!

lol this thread was taken into that realm by a few commenters back since page 2.

 

[CrazyG]

I agree about the trade route thing. Not for any of the reasons being presented, but because you can often declare war, get a trade route a few times, and get a great peace settlement. They are overvalued in war score. Losing a couple of those isn't a big deal economy wise, its just a handful of production lost.

To be blunt to all the "noob-sayers": Not all of us want to be stuck into some obsessive-compulsive repetition of a single game-structure just because "it's the most efficient". Such a pathetically boring notion.

I understand the frustration if you feel someone isn't taking your suggestion because you are a new player, but that isn't what is happening. People are disagreeing because they disagree. They claim you are wrong because you are wrong. Notably that Martin Fencka comment. If you think a player of that calibre is the best player here, it shows that you don't understand the game as well as you think you do. A really notable, common mistake is not realizing that you can go over your supply limit. Accepting-20% food and production for a few turns won't end your game.

On to the topic, war wariness racking up when you kill enemy units. The intention is for winning a war to also increase war wariness. The result is that winning a war, also increases war wariness. I don't see the issue here. It really hurts defensive tradition? A big criticism of defensive tradition is that it could just ignore the world all game. You shouldn't be able to consistently defend against a 40 city empire with just one city.

Does it affect warmongers? No, but none of the suggestions will make it affect warmongers either.

 

[Minh Le]

Then a lot of these lads start telling us that their idea of balance essentially means "there's only one right way the game should be played NOOB".

No? Thats what YOU think actually. Whats wrong with tall empire being weak militarily and can be easily bullied if you fails to plan ahead and manipulate your neighbours? There is just no way for a 4 cities civ to win war against a 40 cities civ. Thats is ballance. A 4 cities civ should smartly bribe his neighbour into conflict with each others, make friends with the big boy, prepare the defensive line and use its culture and science advantage as a weapon. If we are able to beat a 40 cities empire with 4 cities by brute force then what kind of multiple ways of playing is that?

 

[tu_79]

I'm however concerned by one of OP claims. Is it really possible that warmongers choosing the right policies are barely affected by war weariness? If that's really the case, then domination victories are not delayed at all and all that change served nothing. Can someone confirm? I'm not the most bloodthirsty player around, you know?

 

[Stalker0]

I agree about the trade route thing. Not for any of the reasons being presented, but because you can often declare war, get a trade route a few times, and get a great peace settlement. They are overvalued in war score. Losing a couple of those isn't a big deal economy wise, its just a handful of production lost.

In my most recent game. I declared war. I nuked the opponent's capital....NUKED!!!

He pillaged some of my trade routes. He was winning in war score!!!

So that's my way of saying "yes, I do think Trade Routes are overvalued in score".

 

[civplayer33]

Yeah trade routes do seem overvalued in WS and it seems that is only true if the AI pillages them, has anyone noticed that? I pillaged two TR in my last war and got an increase in WS of 2, while the AI got an increase of 10 when they pillaged two of mine.
Also, I currently have a WS of -30 with Denmark and my vassal has -100 1 turn after Denmark declared on me...he probably pillaged some stuff in my vassal's lands but certainly not in mine and he didn't kill or damage or plunder anything of mine. Do I get negative WS from someone attacking my vassal's stuff? I should probably report to GitHub, I guess.

 

[amateurgamer88]

I'm however concerned by one of OP claims. Is it really possible that warmongers choosing the right policies are barely affected by war weariness? If that's really the case, then domination victories are not delayed at all and all that change served nothing. Can someone confirm? I'm not the most bloodthirsty player around, you know?

From the games I played with Authority so far, I don't find WW affecting me too much. Why? First, I get reduction in WW. Secondly, I get more military cap which I don't necessarily use up so it takes longer for WW to drop me below my cap and result in the penalties in /. I find that good players (doesn't have to be great players) can often accomplish a lot with a small army as they know how to bait the AI units and use the terrain to their advantage. Conversely, a human player with a same size army as the AI can usually win more decisively before WW even kicks in.

Recently, I had a game where I pushed quite cautiously dragging the war more than I had to and WW didn't affect me that much. Even happiness wise, I only went negative after capturing a large city with 15 pop and it's still in revolt. I went on to capture three large cities from that war and I only benefited. There seemed to be no downside. Do I get slowed down? Honestly, I stopped conquest to wait for my warmonger penalty to go down. I don't want to make too many enemies at once. Otherwise, WW is certainly not on the top of my worries.

 

[chicorbeef]

I agree that Trade Routes are overvalued in war score.

Is it possible for warmongers to suffer more war weariness (based on their warmonger penalty) and for defenders to suffer less war weariness (based on the enemy's warmonger penalty)?

 

[tu_79]

From the games I played with Authority so far, I don't find WW affecting me too much. Why? First, I get reduction in WW. Secondly, I get more military cap which I don't necessarily use up so it takes longer for WW to drop me below my cap and result in the penalties in /. I find that good players (doesn't have to be great players) can often accomplish a lot with a small army as they know how to bait the AI units and use the terrain to their advantage. Conversely, a human player with a same size army as the AI can usually win more decisively before WW even kicks in.

Recently, I had a game where I pushed quite cautiously dragging the war more than I had to and WW didn't affect me that much. Even happiness wise, I only went negative after capturing a large city with 15 pop and it's still in revolt. I went on to capture three large cities from that war and I only benefited. There seemed to be no downside. Do I get slowed down? Honestly, I stopped conquest to wait for my warmonger penalty to go down. I don't want to make too many enemies at once. Otherwise, WW is certainly not on the top of my worries.

So, this means that truly warmongers bypass war weariness penalties, while occasional conquerors have to make a few short wars? If so, I'm not completely against this, but it also means that the only way to slow down warmongers is having restlessness conquered cities for a while.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I played enough OCC to tell I can win even with 10 unit supply and on Pangea not on some cheat island map. So its not a problem.

There is just no way for a 4 cities civ to win war against a 40 cities civ. Thats is ballance.

So, what is now true? We both know, the first one, cause its happening that way. I often enough was able to defend my empire with only 4 or 5 units at start of war against warmonger nations.

I'm however concerned by one of OP claims. Is it really possible that warmongers choosing the right policies are barely affected by war weariness? If that's really the case, then domination victories are not delayed at all and all that change served nothing. Can someone confirm? I'm not the most bloodthirsty player around, you know?

I rarely go for warmongering too. But ask yourself, why is there a try to reduce warmongering, if theres also a policy in the warmonger tree, which negates a great part of that new mechanic? Makes no sense.
Additionally, if you are a warmonger, you focus greatly on military buildings and policies, which also increase the supply cap nearby. A lot of wars on land and see give you more generals and admirals. In most cases, you dont need more than 2 generals and 1 admiral, rest is placed in citadels and voyages, giving more supply cap and with it, a great buffer for WW.
Autocraty also has a tenet, which reduce the WW by another 25%. I think in most cases, picking an ideology is that late you should have already won the game formally.
But with both reductions together, who cares about the new mechanic anymore?

 

[Stalker0]

But ask yourself, why is there a try to reduce warmongering, if theres also a policy in the warmonger tree, which negates a great part of that new mechanic? Makes no sense.
Additionally, if you are a warmonger, you focus greatly on military buildings and policies, which also increase the supply cap nearby. A lot of wars on land and see give you more generals and admirals. In most cases, you dont need more than 2 generals and 1 admiral, rest is placed in citadels and voyages, giving more supply cap and with it, a great buffer for WW.
Autocraty also has a tenet, which reduce the WW by another 25%. I think in most cases, picking an ideology is that late you should have already won the game formally.
But with both reductions together, who cares about the new mechanic anymore?

I've noted it before, and I continue to agree with this point. Its not that the reduction don't make IRL sense, I can understand why a warfaring culture would suffer less WW. But as noted here, they already do through a number of other mechanisms. And since WW is meant to target and reduce the power of warring...I think its wrong to allow that mechanic to be bypassed by the very nations it was installed in the first place to curb.

 

[chicorbeef]

I've noted it before, and I continue to agree with this point. Its not that the reduction don't make IRL sense, I can understand why a warfaring culture would suffer less WW. But as noted here, they already do through a number of other mechanisms. And since WW is meant to target and reduce the power of warring...I think its wrong to allow that mechanic to be bypassed by the very nations it was installed in the first place to curb.

I agree with this. If we're going to make War Weariness be the primary curb to warmongering nations, then we should let it take full effect, not have it reduced through the primary war tree.

Autocracy's WW reduction can stay, though.

 

[amateurgamer88]

At this point, I do find that the defenders suffers more from WW. The attackers are prepared for war and take the initiative. They make all the preparations for wars so, even with high WW, they won't be hurt as much. Meanwhile, the defenders might not be ready and things like pillaged tiles add additional unhappiness to hurt you further. I do like the idea from @chicorbeef where the amount of WW is tied to Warmonger Penalty. Oh, you are always warring? Then, you better expect your WW to rise higher so you suffer more. If you are defending, you'd be able to produce defensive units for a longer duration to help you defend against the foe. If both sides are suffering relatively the same WW, then you know for certain that the attacking side will win due to the preparations done before the war.

Something else I'd like to see is Warmonger Penalty also affecting the rate you lose WW after a war. If you choose to have a lengthy war to grab more cities, then your core cities won't be very productive for a long time. I always find it ridiculous how quickly after the peace treaty I can return to war since I keep most of my units alive with lots of promotions for most of them. The peace treaty and the turns after it are merely the time for my WW to go down and lets me get a few more units that will keep my momentum going.

If we are going to make these changes, I am curious about one thing that I'd like to hear the opinion of other people. I've noticed that the AI on higher difficulties seems to be affected less by WW where, even at the max levels, they still have enough supply cap to build more units. I don't know if this is due to you hitting them hard enough that they current troop count drops below the decreased supply cap or if they just have such a large supply cap that, with all their bonuses, they can potentially keep building units and prolonged wars help them. This might be a reason why I see a number of my games where an AI can snowball as WW does little to them. Of course, this might just be an issue on Marathon speed.

 

[Minh Le]

So, what is now true? We both know, the first one, cause its happening that way. I often enough was able to defend my empire with only 4 or 5 units at start of war against warmonger nations.


I rarely go for warmongering too. But ask yourself, why is there a try to reduce warmongering, if theres also a policy in the warmonger tree, which negates a great part of that new mechanic? Makes no sense.
Additionally, if you are a warmonger, you focus greatly on military buildings and policies, which also increase the supply cap nearby. A lot of wars on land and see give you more generals and admirals. In most cases, you dont need more than 2 generals and 1 admiral, rest is placed in citadels and voyages, giving more supply cap and with it, a great buffer for WW.
Autocraty also has a tenet, which reduce the WW by another 25%. I think in most cases, picking an ideology is that late you should have already won the game formally.
But with both reductions together, who cares about the new mechanic anymore?

You can defend, because youre smarter than AI and you have preparation, but you cant win (i.e having higher warscore).

 

[intelli]

Tying it to warmonger penalty does sound good, having a high anti-warmonger fervour should by literal definition result in less war weariness.

 

[kkkitten]

Can someone confirm? I'm not the most bloodthirsty player around, you know?

I had a very bloody game after patch came out. I can say I had no problems with supply cap. My happiness took massive dives but it didn't stop me from taking out more cities with instant yields before revolt; you could probably continue warring and send some military to re-puppet the revolting city with no problems but I didn't do that so cannot confirm on that one. Also I did get ahead and keep my lead; might be a different story from behind with less cities

 

[tu_79]

I had a very bloody game after patch came out. I can say I had no problems with supply cap. My happiness took massive dives but it didn't stop me from taking out more cities with instant yields before revolt; you could probably continue warring and send some military to re-puppet the revolting city with no problems but I didn't do that so cannot confirm on that one. Also I did get ahead and keep my lead; might be a different story from behind with less cities

Can you share your total number of turns (or date), difficulty and pace?

 

[kkkitten]

Can you share your total number of turns (or date), difficulty and pace?

Epic game pace, large Communitas map, Emperor. I played England in a 12 civ 16 CS game. I won domination at the end of Modern Era