Warring in BNW - is it a no-no?

[Polisurgist]

What happens if you take a city but return it (for gold, resources, ect) as part of the peace treaty?

You still took it, so no help there.

I wouldn't mind seeing the offering of lopsided trade deals help diplo in general. Let you give away some loose strategics for little to no money in exchange for better relations; conversely, the closer you get to the AI's max price, the less they like you). That would help this situation...conquering half an empire and then giving the cities back might help mitigate the penalty you get (though I don't think it should eliminate it entirely).

 

[Ninakoru]

Wide domination play has always had an advantage (especially against the AI's) in civ games, and IMO tall and peaceful play has been progressively been buffed to compete over the life of civ 5. Since going wide and waging war is no longer the "dominant" strategy, people say it has been nerfed. The peaceful empires have more ways to defend themselves against it now. So people are complaining that it isn't easy enough...maybe they haven't figured it out yet?

We have passed from the G&K approach that was about playing wide and warmongering to an opposite approach of peace and tall.

Is not that is more or less difficult, is that playing peace and tall is always optimal, at least until industrial. In the same way you could play tall and peacefully on G&K, but you would make things more difficult that way. It was optimal to at least counter back and get a few cities from the neighbor aggressor, not doing so made things just harder.

If you don't like wars, hey, that's OK, I like the option of playing peacefully, but killing early war is not the way to do so. War shouldn't be the only option, but at least a viable option during all the game.

 

[Krajzen]

That's not my experience. A resurrected AI brings back any and all modifiers you had before he was wiped out. So, you get an ally for life but ONLY if you already had good relations with him. Hardly much of a benefit. But again, that's something I think they should change. A resurrection should get you an ally for life... and currently does not.

I don't know many examples from real world history in which nation liberated by other nation would be its ally for thousands years only because it was "liberated" - your point of view is based on thinking "liberation = Freedom and Love, let's hug!". My homeland, Poland, during WWII was "liberated" from Third Reich by USSR. In Civs terms everything would look OK - good uncle Stalin resurrected Polish country! In fact, after extremely bad Polish - Soviet relations in 1920 - 1945, and devastating "liberation" by Soviet forces, Poland after few years was "independent country" - practically under Stalin's control, and today Polish - Russian relations are still bad... Something similar can be told about Spanish - Mesoamerican invasion which liberated many countries occupied by Aztec Empire, and they later realised that Spaniards are much bigger threat; or about many countries in renaissance Italian Wars, during which allying against former liberator was something normal.

Imagine you are the leader of Civ nation which was bullied by two foreign powers, and later one of these powers (with machiavellistic leader ) paid first one to attack you - only to liberate you later for diplomatic bonus Why would you have to love "liberator" like this?

I don't see anything strange in the way liberation is shown in this game, for me it works perfectly - if I release nation with which I had good relations before, they love me. If they hated me, well, firstly why should I liberate my former enemy? And why should I expect him to love me, only because after 2000 years of bullying him I released his devastated country - only for my own political benefit? This leader can think "nice, that helped my nation, but now I must do something with total economical domination of my sweet liberator - for raison d'État!)

A resurrection should be useful for your empire, or turn friendly/neutral nation into "thankful ally", but I don't understand why it should change your worst historical enemy into instant lover. That's silly.

 

[Wodan]

My homeland, Poland, during WWII was "liberated" from Third Reich by USSR.

It's arguable that Poland was puppeted.

Civ mechanics don't mirror real life exactly, not even close. What is a clean choose A or B situation in civ is anything but in real life.

Why would you have to love "liberator" like this?

I don't think it should be a complete turnaround of relations, but it should definitely be more than it is now.

If your nation is wiped off the map, and it has its independence restored, absolutely you should be a very large positive modifier in the game. Now, if your liberator had many negative modifiers from the past and/or extorted you and made many demands after liberation, then those negative modifiers should obviously apply.

A resurrection should be useful for your empire, or turn friendly/neutral nation into "thankful ally", but I don't understand why it should change your worst historical enemy into instant lover. That's silly.

I agree, but then that wasn't really what I meant to suggest. I said "ally for life" but I didn't mean that it meant you ignored all negative modifiers, so I have to retract on that one.

 

[civ54lyfe]

USSR "liberating" Poland (in your context) is not analogous with actually Liberating a city/civ from a conqueror in the Civ game. if you Liberate a city, you are not imposing any government, trade, tribute, production, or even diplomacy with the Liberated city/civ.

...but i still kinda agree with your broader point about the actual game. i just think as a Liberator, you should earn a huge positive modifier with that civ, yet still suffer a major turnaround if the situation calls for it.

 

[boghog]

You are all right, of course. But the mechanic you are exploiting using by liberating a civ is the "negative warmonger hate" you get with other civs - those that aren't directly involved in that particular war. Just as your city conquests negatively affect your relationships with third parties, liberations improve those relationships greatly. That's what makes (early) warmongering if done diligently a sure-why-not rather than a no-no.