Fabio1701
King
Can't find if this has been brought up already, but I am very happy with the proposed changes regarding warmongering rules, mentioned here:
http://civilization.com/news/entries/diplomacy-gets-a-major-upgrade-in-civilization-vi
First of all you get NO warmonger diplomatic penalty at all for making war in the Ancient Era. The penalty phases in and starts to get significant around the Renaissance, but thats when the new Casus Belli system comes fully into play. Casus Belli, a latin expression, means an act or situation provoking or justifying war.
Beach goes on to say that there are six different just reasons for war that are covered by the Casus Belli system. If you are eligible for one of those you can declare war and get a huge reduction in your warmongering penalty with the other civs in the game. Some even reduce that penalty to zero, like the Reconquest Casus Belli, which is to retake a city lost in a prior war.
I find this even better than all the other diplomacy improvements mentioned in the article regarding rumours, hidden agendas and yadda yadda yadda.
Warmongering has been one of the biggest thorns in civ5, both in gameplay and in historicity. It makes little sence and is no fun getting such hate from other nations based on a war that happened 2000 years ago before there was even a concept of 'war of aggression'. No one now blames Italy for the conquests of Rome, yet in civ5 warmongering penalties seem to last almost the entire game. It always irked me that if I didnt start a war, but I won it that I would be penalized. The biggest illdesign of civ5 diplomacy. So the casus belli system really attracts me.
So now the question is, what are these 6 reasons for a just war? Anyone got more new on that? We know of one:
1. Reconquest.
I suppose this one was mentioned as it is the only way to reduce warmongering penalty in civ5, that is if you liberate the cities and give to the original owner.
But what could the others be?
Intervention? If a civ is doing some really bad stuff like razing cities one could intervene on humanitarian grounds?
Freedom of oppression? If a civ has a particularly nasty government, fascist and all that, that one could liberate the people to bring another ideology? Mind you that would only work if civ6 had Alpha Centauri levels of mistreating your populace, and I see no sign of that.
Religious warfare? I read somewhere that this would be a thing, but I fail to see how a crusade cant be seen as warmongering. Or maybe it is only seen that way by civ of the same religion?
Defence? This must be one of the choices, in taht if I'm attacked that shoudl count for something no matter how many cities I take.
What else?
http://civilization.com/news/entries/diplomacy-gets-a-major-upgrade-in-civilization-vi
First of all you get NO warmonger diplomatic penalty at all for making war in the Ancient Era. The penalty phases in and starts to get significant around the Renaissance, but thats when the new Casus Belli system comes fully into play. Casus Belli, a latin expression, means an act or situation provoking or justifying war.
Beach goes on to say that there are six different just reasons for war that are covered by the Casus Belli system. If you are eligible for one of those you can declare war and get a huge reduction in your warmongering penalty with the other civs in the game. Some even reduce that penalty to zero, like the Reconquest Casus Belli, which is to retake a city lost in a prior war.
I find this even better than all the other diplomacy improvements mentioned in the article regarding rumours, hidden agendas and yadda yadda yadda.
Warmongering has been one of the biggest thorns in civ5, both in gameplay and in historicity. It makes little sence and is no fun getting such hate from other nations based on a war that happened 2000 years ago before there was even a concept of 'war of aggression'. No one now blames Italy for the conquests of Rome, yet in civ5 warmongering penalties seem to last almost the entire game. It always irked me that if I didnt start a war, but I won it that I would be penalized. The biggest illdesign of civ5 diplomacy. So the casus belli system really attracts me.
So now the question is, what are these 6 reasons for a just war? Anyone got more new on that? We know of one:
1. Reconquest.
I suppose this one was mentioned as it is the only way to reduce warmongering penalty in civ5, that is if you liberate the cities and give to the original owner.
But what could the others be?
Intervention? If a civ is doing some really bad stuff like razing cities one could intervene on humanitarian grounds?
Freedom of oppression? If a civ has a particularly nasty government, fascist and all that, that one could liberate the people to bring another ideology? Mind you that would only work if civ6 had Alpha Centauri levels of mistreating your populace, and I see no sign of that.
Religious warfare? I read somewhere that this would be a thing, but I fail to see how a crusade cant be seen as warmongering. Or maybe it is only seen that way by civ of the same religion?
Defence? This must be one of the choices, in taht if I'm attacked that shoudl count for something no matter how many cities I take.
What else?
