1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

War. What is it good for?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by angelus512, Aug 8, 2012.

  1. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    If the scenario is not, in and of itself, reasonable then the argument goes out the window. Attacking the scenario is one way of challenging the assertion that war-weariness would cripple the computer, even though it didn't in Civ 4. I have not described war-weariness in detail because I assumed it might work similarly to the way it did before (progressive happiness penalties). Thus, not a timer at all, but a growing incentive to find peace.




    Please re-read my post carefully. I mention war-weariness as a contributing factor (how could you not), but state that its important has been over-blown.

    I think you misunderstood. I meant that the US did not recognize that the opinions of the populace was the CoG. They needed to be separated (ideologically, or physically) from the VC. I suppose a fair question is, 'would the 1960s/70s media have allowed for a Malaya-style conduct of the war?' Who knows?

    Again, it is not about total 'military potential' in Clausewitzian, state-on-state terms. It is about accomplishing specific objectives. Whether or not the US was 'completely exhausted' is irrelevant (they clearly were not). They had reached a point where, for various reasons, they were unwilling to continue to pursue their objectives. This was down to a lack of measurable strategic success (again, not the lack of tactical successes), the absence of a clear imperative to fight, and vocal dissatisfaction with the war at home. Many, for different reasons, ignore the first two and focus solely on the protests. I'm simply trying to remind people that it was merely 'part of the picture', not the end all and be all.

    Seven years is not a 'short' conflict. In the Seven Years' War the British captured vast tracts of land and did not suffer war-weariness (if anything, the population grew increasingly in favour of the war as it progressed). In Civ 5 the British would have suffered serious, even catastrophic war-weariness. Obviously Civ 5 cannot, and should not, try to create a perfect emulation of the world....that is not my argument. Rather, I am countering your assertion that having 'war-weariness' tied to conquest rather than duration of the war and units lost is an ideal and historically true system.

    As for the French and Polish uprisings, they are completely beside the point. My point was about a successful war "over there" causing unhappiness at home, which did not happen in Nazi Germany until things started going bad for them (which is why I left that part of the war out....the point was to find conflicts in which short, sharp conquest did not lead to any war-weariness at home to contrast with Civ 5 in which a short, victorious campaign WOULD lead to war-weariness....moreso than a drawn-out stalemated war).

    Lastly, I would suggest that saying "we" in referencing Vietnam does not help your argument (unless you were there, of course). Neutral language was best (i.e. "the Americans").
     
  2. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    25,068
    There was nothing unreasonable about the scenario, and I countered all of your objections to it in my last post. Did you read what I said about penalties not affecting the upper level AI or lower level player? I guess not as you have restated your point here without mentioning it.

    Progessive happiness penalties that build over time ----> effectively time-limit a war. This straight jackets the AI, makes it predictable and opens it to exploits How do you keep missing these points? You haven't countered them as far as I can tell, you just ignore them.

    I also don't see why the AI should be given more incentive to stop fighting a war that it isn't losing. If it wants to keep sending units to the slaughter, that's it's perogative. Your solution would take a random element out of the game in favor of a rigid formula. A human player can send wave after wave of soldiers to death if s/he wanted, but you would take that option away from an AI.

    I have also said again that in my experience the AI is rather good at making peace overtures when appropriate. It doesn't necessarily give or offer good terms for peace, but that is a separate issue. Just because you wish it would be forced to stop fighting a long war that it isn't losing doesn't mean that would improve gameplay.

    If you are going to continue advocating for it, I suggest coming up with a concrete mechanic to talk about and to also take time to counter the concerns I have raised with your vague war-weariness mechanic rather than just ignoring them.

    I did a search for CoG, couldn't find it's meaning.
    '...allowed for a Malaya-style....etc.'----> Probably not. Also, irrelevant to CiV.


    My whole point was that the US's objectives were very different in that war than they had been in the past. The goal post for victory had moved significantly from 'crush and occupy' to 'defend and hold'. Either one of those types of victory were achievable, and their were several points where the war exhausted North came close to offering a real peace. We could not, and did not sustain the war as it was politically inexpedient to do so (which is your own point in the bolded part of the above paragraph). My whole point is that war-weariness and the protests at home had a large part to do with that.
    The whole line of argument on Vietnam started with my response to this quote:
    I provided an example on how war wariness 'takes out' home cities in real life. This discussion has gone way beyond a discussion of the game mechanics into an argument over history that has little bearing on the original topic.

    You can use historical precedents all day long and I could as well. That doesn't mean your mechanic would work as intended. Frankly, as you haven't gone into details on how it should work or made specific counteraguments to the objections I raised to it, I don't see how any of these posts help the discussion along. While I understand that you are trying to make a historical correlation with your idea, the fact that you have spent much more time on the history side than on the gameplay side underlines that this thread isn't going anywhere but off-topic.

    I also only said that the system as implemented as-is works well, not that it is ideal while pointing out that the vague changes you suggest would hurt rather than help the situation. I also haven't tried to claim that it is true to all wars in history, merely that it does have precedents and that it does work in the game.


    To the highlighted part: No I wasn't, but I tend to identify with our military and it's conflicts on a personal level as almost every male in my direct lineage till myself has served literally going back to Valley Forge. I wasn't accepted when I tried to enlist due to a golf-ball sized tumor on my thyroid. While there wasn't anything I could do about that, it's a mild point of shame in my own eyes.

    Nonetheless, point well taken.

    My main point was that you are taking things out of context to make a point. Your argument on WWII falls apart when looking at the totality of the war. I have already said that you looking at a snippet of the conflict has absolutely nothing to do with the problem of 'endless wars' in CiV. I'll reiterate that I haven't heard many other complaints on the subject, and I (still) haven't read you or anyone else's plan to fix this 'problem' in anything but the vaguest terms.
     
  3. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    I don't think it is worth continuing the conversation. It's just you and me, and we're talking past each other more than anything. If you feel that millenia-long wards are good, normal, and the only way the AI can compete then I can't change that. I'm certainly unwilling to lay out, again, how war-weariness worked in Civ 4 and why there is no reason that it couldn't work in Civ 5. Just a few parting points for clarification:

    - If you read closely you'll notice I said, "I understand that the unhappiness hit for taking cities is meant to represent the unhappily occupied citizens...but why does it 'take it out' on your home cities? ". The phrase 'take it out' has a very different meaning to 'take out'. This is an example of you and I talking at cross-purposes.

    - CoG means 'Centre of Gravity'

    - I'm sorry you were unable to follow in the lines of your predecessors regarding the US military. I can understand how that must weigh on a person.
     
  4. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    25,068
    My mother was quite pleased at the time, the tumor was benign but it still required an op and recovery. This was 2006 when the situation in Iraq was bad. So she was happy I couldn't go in and went to college instead.

    Btw it was a fun debate :)
     
  5. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,088
    Location:
    Iowa USA
    That is quite a big undertaking. When your book comes out I'll have to make arrangements to buy a copy.

    Now that I think about it a CiV scenario about Verdun would be quite interesting. I have figured out how to add units to the game. I am adding WWI units at the moment, just got done with the Sopwith Camel. What I need is a set of WWI infantry. Hopefully one of the unit modders will add some soon.

    First of all if I made a scenario about the Battle of Verdun, I'd need a good map that shows the towns and terrain surrounding it. Like this one for instance.

    Spoiler :


    I could not have said this better myself. To me all civ games go hand in hand with history. You should be able to use history to support a point as long as you stay on topic. In this case war and unhappiness.

    I feel a war weariness system could be added to keep wars limited. This could begin after so many units get killed, so many battles are lost, more and more cities or territory is taken by the enemy. The resolve of the people begins to break down. Production faulters, the economy breaks down, a curtain of impending doom engulfs the populace. This should be seperate from the happiness system, which really is based on the expansion and growth of an empire. War weariness should be based on winning or losing a war. Really when you think about it happiness and war weariness are two different entities, with seperate purposes. That is how I see it.

    Some people ask will it handicap the AI? That is a tough one. The thing is the devs do not seem to care about handicapping the AI, especially with additions like offensive citadels. The case being, because players have more fun winning than losing. The thing about the AI is that it cannot win wars against the human player, although it still can against itself. What we need to do is find ways to give the AI some advantages against the human and not vice versa. If we start taking AI territory and cities, and it starts getting war weariness penalties. That makes it too easy to defeat, an already easy AI to beat. So, if a war weariness system was added based on unit losses, for example. It would have to be balanced in such a way that the AI could lose far more units than the human before it started receiving war weariness penalties. In my opinion, in this regard unit losses would be the way to go, because the AI rarely takes cities from the human. My whole time playing CiV I have lost what 5 or 6 cities. With this in mind unit losses leading to war weariness, should be based on difficulty level. The harder the difficulty the more AI units you have to kill, and the less you can lose.

    The other thing that should be very important is the capital, except with respect to Russia, due to their vast territory. In most regards the capital should be the most important city to a country. If it is taken people should instanstly become unhappy. However, saying that, not all unhappiness should mean that resolve goes away. Indeed not, anger is a very powerful kind of unhappiness which increases resolve to fight and regain honor. What I think should happen, is that a side that loses its capital should fight on for so many turns to regain it, and if they cannot do that, should come to the peace table to try to find a way to end the war. The fight to regain the capital is where war weariness becomes war readiness. Production for the AI civs remaining cities increases 2x (?), and only units are built.

    This should begin a new phase in the war. For so many turns the AI gets to lose far more units than the human, depending on difficulty. However, if the human loses their share of units in so many turns the human has to give the capital back during peace talks. If the human holds on or kills enough enemy units, without losing their quota, then they can keep the enemy capital.

    I have to laugh, this could be a very bad idea. Or unrealistic, but sometimes bad ideas bring out good ideas through further conversation. So, any thoughts on this?
     
  6. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    Well, if you want help with a WWI scenario I'd be happy to lend a hand, or at least recommend some books. There's really not much on Verdun, sadly. The French official history is the most complete account.
     
  7. Callonia

    Callonia Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    2,176
    I have found war to be very useful mechanic for making the AIs that is outright hostile and coming around every turn just to call you names while denouncing you while having puny army in comparison of mine. If you got rolled over in less than 5 turns, you shouldn't be antagonizing the guy into focusing on you only.Its funny watching the rude ai beg you for a neutral white peace even when he was so incredibly offensive in first place.
     
  8. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,088
    Location:
    Iowa USA
    Thank you any help would be great.

    I found this one at Amazon. The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916 published in 1994, and written by Alistair Horne. They say it is a most concise English version of what happened there. It is on my list of future books to purchase.

    When the time comes there could be something very valuable you could do for me. I would need help setting up what buildings should be in what towns, and how many initial troops, military units, should be in certain places. Another thing we can go over is the state of readiness of French/German troops at that time. Also, maybe a bit about their commanders, along with plans for offense and defense. Military advice on things like that are really invaluable for scenario creation.

    I do know this, we need some WWI scenarios for CiV.
     
  9. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    Horne did not come out in 1994...it was republished then. It was originally from the 1960s and is one of the worst books I have ever read. It is painfully unclear, full of apocrypha and seriously dated. Sadly, the only other work in English is Malcolm Brown's book....in which he rips off entire phrases from Horne (without citation).

    There is not a single good overview of the battle of Verdun in English. In French, it is spotty.

    We should probably discuss the scenario elsewhere, but you'd have to make artillery quite strong. I would aim for a Western Front scenario before a single battle one. It'll be easier (I think) to scale properly.
     
  10. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,088
    Location:
    Iowa USA
    Ok, I did not read close enough. Well I am glad your writing a book on Verdun, it is sorely needed. I do know that I watched a decent documentary awhile back about it.

    Yes, and we can discuss the scenario elsewhere. Maybe the Western front would be a better choice for CiV. We can dicuss that further. I'll send you a private message soon.

    Take care
     
  11. thadian

    thadian Kami of Awakened Dreamers

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,288
    Location:
    Indiana, USA
    i would prefer war weariness to provide -1 gold cumulatively every 10 turns or something. it might also convince the AI to settle for less than all your cities for a war it isn't winning.

    Also, a happiness hit would be good against the AI by placing a behavior control on it's perpetual insanity - it's unlimited happiness causes it to not have consequences with unhappiness and while this might not change that much, at least it would add a function to it.
     
  12. Callonia

    Callonia Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    2,176
    Yup, earlier on i used to attempt to pillage ai's luxury hexes but i realized very fast it isn't having any effects except for affecting it's trade with other civs.. insane happiness they have.
     

Share This Page