Why don't broken promises result in a casus belli?

[Menzies]

Seems kind of odd to have the whole casus belli system, then leave one of the more solid uses for it collecting dust on the shelf. Why not allow some use to these broken promises apart from hurt feelings?

I don't know, just seems odd that breaking a promise doesn't give a casus belli, considering it's one of the more obvious reasons for war.

 

[Lupine]

I would agree.

If I ask you to stop spying on me or not settle near me and you do it again, that is immediate denounce and in 5 turns its war. CB should be automatic for that.

 

[esoba]

Well a simple answer is that CB really doesn't matter much due to the penalties being so steep that war for any reason will lead to worldwide hate.

 

[Pheylan]

No kidding. This was one of the more significant disconnects for me with the Causus Belli system. There is almost no reason for the computer to keep its promises, and indeed it rarely does in my experience.

 

[Menzies]

I would agree.

If I ask you to stop spying on me or not settle near me and you do it again, that is immediate denounce and in 5 turns its war. CB should be automatic for that.

It probably is worth considering that they might have thought it would go:

- Broken promise
- Denouncement
- Formal War

But formal war is a pitiful amount off the warmonger penalty, and let's be blunt about this, the AI directly breaking a promise should offer a stronger casus belli than them getting huffy about me accidentally having more Great People than them. At this point in time breaking a promise is about as meaningful as competing with the AI in something they think they're super special favourite at.

 

[dexters]

Seems kind of odd to have the whole casus belli system, then leave one of the more solid uses for it collecting dust on the shelf. Why not allow some use to these broken promises apart from hurt feelings?

I don't know, just seems odd that breaking a promise doesn't give a casus belli, considering it's one of the more obvious reasons for war.

I agree completely.

There's a thead I'm ideas suggestions about it!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/lets-talk-casus-belli.602229/

 

[Big J Money]

I agree but I don't think the AI could handle it. Imagine complaining about their troops when they're in a position where they are trapped in your borders or something. The AI would never be smart enough to sell them.

 

[Axil]

An idea would be to have a counter system - each broken promise would slowly tip relations to the point where after a number of broken promises a CB would become an option. This would limit issue of CBs being triggered by trapped units (it would result in one point on the scale towards a trigger point)

Also this system could have knock on effects - e.g. As a Civ gets more points for broken promises there would be penalties (e.g envoys less effective with City States (would would be less inclined to believe a Civ that has been proven to break promises)

The system could also be implemented as a in-game system ( Civs that don't break promises get bonuses to envoy effectiveness or diplomacy (if/when that appears as a game system))

 

[Zaarin]

I agree, especially since the AI hasn't kept a promise to me once, not even from the leaders who are supposed to be "honorable" and "honest."

 

[Roxlimn]

Some of them automatically result in CB, regardless of whether you asked for it or not. For instance, you can ask Philip to not convert your cities, but regardless of whether you ask or not, if he does convert one of your cities, you have a CB for Holy War. The moderate penalties ARE livable. They can be negated with diplomatic bonuses, and they fade in time. Not with Philip, though. So long as you're keeping his capital, he's going to hate you. Which totally makes sense.

You also don't have to warn the AI off your cities. If it captures a city, you can always declare Reconquest War, without Warmonger Penalties, and if you stop at reconquering with your own cities, then you get zero penalties.

I think the only discussion that doesn't result in a CB is settling, and even that's technically a CB waiting to happen, since you can always declare a War of Territorial Expansion.

 

[Ramalhão]

It probably is worth considering that they might have thought it would go:

- Broken promise
- Denouncement
- Formal War

But formal war is a pitiful amount off the warmonger penalty, and let's be blunt about this, the AI directly breaking a promise should offer a stronger casus belli than them getting huffy about me accidentally having more Great People than them. At this point in time breaking a promise is about as meaningful as competing with the AI in something they think they're super special favourite at.

Agreed. In Civ5 we can go this way: ask to not do something, denounce and then declare war. I think Civ6 should work the same way. It could open a small window reporting about the broken promise and then choose to denounce that leader or them go to war if that guy keep breaking promises.

I think it's very unfair to give a warmonger penalty to the player, it should be none (because it's AI fault, not player's fault) or very little penalty at most.