Why i want the war-weariness back in the expansion!

[bcaiko]

The problem is that the AI has practically infinite happiness in Civ V in order to give it a leg up against the player. War weariness would only hurt the player and in the most annoying way possible.

This is absolutely correct. War weariness would ultimately only effect the player. Especially on higher levels.

The solution to the OP's problem is not to complicate things with a new mechanic, but to correct the AI's peace negotiations calculation.

Just make offering a peace treaty lower war weariness in your cities, and then the mechanic makes sense. You're fighting a war, war weariness is forcing down troop morale/etc., you can offer peace. If the AI takes it, war over and weariness gone. If the AI doesn't you lose some weariness. Further, refusing peace after like 20 turns of war increases the penalties.

In that case, I'd just spam rediculous peace offers where I demand everything they can give me.

"What? I offered you peace. My people aren't getting weary. You should take my rediculous offers."

Given the AI's peace negotiation tactics, the AI will do about the same.

 

[seasnake]

white peace only for the war weariness Reduction, otherwise you're still trying to bully them for goods and your subjects get mad at you. I thought that was obvious, so I didn't specify.

 

[Calouste]

I want to see war weariness come back too. Sometimes wars stalemate and drag on for a thousand years. The other civ is not gaining anything, but will refuse to make peace (unless if I hand over a bunch of cities, which is never going to happen). When this happens it's not realistic and is not even fun. It really just hurts both civs because they are too busy building units to expand or build science buildings.

In a scenario like this, the other civ is stalemate and is not gaining anything. But with war weariness they do have something to lose by refusing peace, which will give the civ more incentive to make peace.

Conflicts tended to last in the olden days. It took the Spanish almost 8 centuries before they booted the last Moor over the Strait of Gibraltar. England was under attack by the Vikings for almost three centuries before they succumbed in 1066. The Crusades lasted almost 200 years. And then you have the 100-year war and the 80-year war. Even later on, France was pretty much continuously at war with the rest of Europe from 1792 to 1813. Of course there were years when nothing really happened during those conflicts, but it wasn't really pace.

 

[Highway_King]

I like the ability to declare war and keep going till I'm done. Unless they offer some really lucrative peace treaties I'm going to turn them down. While I agree on fixing the "we have a pointer stick than you do" ai trait, I'm not so sure the war weariness. If implemented well, the world congress should be effective at curbing long wars.

 

[Tabarnak]

War weariness was the most crappiest feature in mp...for obvious reasons. That said i vote NO.

 

[seasnake]

I like the ability to declare war and keep going till I'm done. Unless they offer some really lucrative peace treaties I'm going to turn them down. While I agree on fixing the "we have a pointer stick than you do" ai trait, I'm not so sure the war weariness. If implemented well, the world congress should be effective at curbing long wars.

You still can, you just have to manage your empire better. If your subjects are on the edge of a revolt perpetual aggression should make them upset with you and vassals sick of the war should want you to go down. Fight as long as you want, but you'll be crippled in other ways. Or fight strategically for limited goals.

 

[Callonia]

I remember war weariness, it didn't work very well at all in civ 4.

They could send 200 troops after you and they all get killed and you only lose like 20 in return. The battle went in your favor.

War Weariness of Said butthurt AI who dow'd you: -5

War Weariness of said player who pwnt the AI royally: -25

lol wut.

Its one of the mechanics that didn't work and only served to enrage me into finishing them off.

 

[The Leviathan]

Why add a new and completely unnecessary game mechanic when you can simply fix the AI's calcuations?

 

[jjkrause84]

Negative reinforcement mechanisms poison the water of the game and only serve to tick off the player.

Instead, Brave New World is doing the right thing and giving the player active, affirmative reasons to not want to go to war. If trading makes more money, the player will generally choose not to go to war (or stay in war forever).

I doubt many players agree with you that war weariness is a good mechanism to bring back. We can all hope this new system will be more engaging and effective.

It's not about making a streamlined, positive reinforcement system of game-play...it is about giving us a fun caricature of history and letting us play with it. There SHOULD be negatives! War-weariness was as excellent system, and it's omission serious hurts the game. It makes it simpler, more bland, and allows wars to last for millennia.

War-weariness should definitely come back.

 

[jjkrause84]

Conflicts tended to last in the olden days. It took the Spanish almost 8 centuries before they booted the last Moor over the Strait of Gibraltar. England was under attack by the Vikings for almost three centuries before they succumbed in 1066. The Crusades lasted almost 200 years. And then you have the 100-year war and the 80-year war. Even later on, France was pretty much continuously at war with the rest of Europe from 1792 to 1813. Of course there were years when nothing really happened during those conflicts, but it wasn't really pace.

Your history could use some brushing up. The Vikings were not "at war" with England in the full meaning of the term. They made periodic raids for plunder and internal political reasons. It was not 'an extension of [international] politics". Basically, the Vikings were playing the part of "barbs". 1066 is in no way related to the previous raids.

The 100 Years War, again, was only barely a war as you or I would understand it. It was a long series of raids by English kings with the odd battle every few decades. The only thing that really looked like 'war' in the Clausewitzian sense was the period started by the English Henry V and ended by the French Philip VII. In this period there was outright conquest, the regular besieging of towns, etc.

As for France's revolutionary wars; we're talking the blink of an eye in Civ terms.

 

[jjkrause84]

I remember war weariness, it didn't work very well at all in civ 4.

They could send 200 troops after you and they all get killed and you only lose like 20 in return. The battle went in your favor.

War Weariness of Said butthurt AI who dow'd you: -5

War Weariness of said player who pwnt the AI royally: -25

lol wut.

Its one of the mechanics that didn't work and only served to enrage me into finishing them off.

If you don't think it worked well (I disagree), then improve it. Poor implementation does not mean that the concept itself was at fault.

 

[Calouste]

Your history could use some brushing up. The Vikings were not "at war" with England in the full meaning of the term. They made periodic raids for plunder and internal political reasons. It was not 'an extension of [international] politics". Basically, the Vikings were playing the part of "barbs". 1066 is in no way related to the previous raids.

The 100 Years War, again, was only barely a war as you or I would understand it. It was a long series of raids by English kings with the odd battle every few decades. The only thing that really looked like 'war' in the Clausewitzian sense was the period started by the English Henry V and ended by the French Philip VII. In this period there was outright conquest, the regular besieging of towns, etc.

As for France's revolutionary wars; we're talking the blink of an eye in Civ terms.

My history doesn't need brushing up, thank you very much. Point was that those conflicts were exactly the kind of thing that the poster I replied to was complaining about in Civ. Long periods where nothing really happens, but still no peace.

 

[JJOne]

Your history could use some brushing up. The Vikings were not "at war" with England in the full meaning of the term. They made periodic raids for plunder and internal political reasons. It was not 'an extension of [international] politics". Basically, the Vikings were playing the part of "barbs". 1066 is in no way related to the previous raids.

The 100 Years War, again, was only barely a war as you or I would understand it. It was a long series of raids by English kings with the odd battle every few decades. The only thing that really looked like 'war' in the Clausewitzian sense was the period started by the English Henry V and ended by the French Philip VII. In this period there was outright conquest, the regular besieging of towns, etc.

As for France's revolutionary wars; we're talking the blink of an eye in Civ terms.

You're twisting facts. After the initial invasion, the AI invasions in a longer war are very alike to the 100 Years war - some raids, followed by cease fire periods, followed by another raids. As for long war periods, look into the history of the roman or of the ottoman empire. Not a year without a military campaign.

War weariness would make late game way more boring - why press end turn 100 times for a culture victory when you can have an entertaining war instead? And would be a poor mechanism for the current domination victory condition.
It would mean you'd have to practice a sort of guerilla warfare: get that foreign capital asap and afterwards declare peace. Much as the sacking of Rome. Or that you have to be completelly superior and destroy your enemy in a few turns - see the nazi french campaign or the second Iraq war. Both also happened, but they don't define all history.

 

[Arachnofiend]

If you don't think it worked well (I disagree), then improve it. Poor implementation does not mean that the concept itself was at fault.

But the concept is at fault. Civilization is, at its core, a game and punishing players for doing well is poor game design.

 

[Dogmouth]

I can't support this. IMO, the problem isn't interminable wars. In terms of gameplay, the long-lasting wars have very few consequences. Introducing a war weariness mechanic would only reward the AI for entering into stupid wars that it can't win by normal means (the AI essentially never runs out of happiness on high difficulties). Additionally, the player is already punished enough for retaliating against a warlike AI (e.g., seizing cities in a defensive war makes you a warmonger in the eyes of some civs). A war weariness mechanic would only further punish you and encourage you to settle for peace while you're gearing up for a counterattack.

In terms of historical precedent, it wasn't uncommon for civilizations in pre-modern times to be extremely hostile towards one another and periodically skirmish for hundreds of years. Others have mentioned the 100 Year War and Viking/English hostilities, but the better parallel for me is the Rome/Parthia "war," which included hundreds of years of open hostilities but only a few dozen years of heated combat.

 

[Matthew.]

I'm not understanding why this is necessary. The way the game is currently set up is to base peace deals on relative military strength. If a Civ refuses peace even though it has been an eternity, it is because they still have the man power (i.e., they are not weary from war) to keep it going on.

I'm also wondering if this "issue" isn't solely related to Immortal/Deity. On lower difficulties the AI should give in the moment it gets its army trashed (can't replenish it quickly enough for eternal war). Adding in a mechanic that doesn't seem needed to make war more realistic on Deity doesn't make sense since the bonuses a Deity AI gets throws realism out regardless.

 

[Colmar]

While I love the idea of making the wars more 'realistic', I don't think there's a way that this could keep balance between winner/loser and AI/human. Furthermore, I can see myself paying civs to war each other. Usually, it's a simple declaration with no action--but WW can add some teeth to my offer.

 

[Dreadnought]

I think two solutions may help:

First, have peace signed automatically if no combat occurs between the players for x turns (15? 20?)

Or, increase the AI's receptiveness to peace as the war goes on (aka, each turn, the AI calculates peace as more necessary, decreasing their demands against the player for peace).

 

[Funky]

Since many posters have given examples of wars in the ancient world, it should be mentioned that in Civ 4 war weariness in this era is a minor issue and only sets in very modestly after a large amount of turns. It gets slightly more troublesome in the middle ages, and only in the modern era does it become a serious problem. This is a great way to depict the changing attitide towards war over the centuries. The massive peace-protests and the resulting pressure on the government during the Vietnam war or the war against Iraq are good examples to show the dramatic consequences of war-weariness today. The feature as it was implemented in Civ 4 could be improved if necessary (e.g. with Dreadnought's suggestion of automatic peace after a certain number of combatless rounds), but scrapping it altogether is unfortunately just another element of the game which is historically implausible.

Furthermore, jjkrause is right of course that the Viking raids or the 100-year war were actually several small wars rather than one continuous conflict.

Civilization is, at its core, a game and punishing players for doing well is poor game design.

I completely agree. Doing well in this case would mean being victorious before the increasing war-weariness starts to pose serious problems, which was always an essential part of good strategical planning in Civ 4. By the way, doing well in a Civ game also means capturing cities, expanding your empire, growing your cities, and building infrastructure and buildings, all things that lead to being seriously punished in Civ 5. I'll let you draw the conclusion yourself what that means for the design of the game, going by your quote.

 

[jjkrause84]

But the concept is at fault. Civilization is, at its core, a game and punishing players for doing well is poor game design.

I think, unfortunately, you're professing the modern ideology of game design (which is deeply flawed). Wars should not be able to go on forever without consequences. It is not about 'punishing' the players for 'doing well'. It is a logical restraint system which forces the player to choose: shall I continue being a war-mongering dictator ruling over a repressed and less-productive populous, or should I listen to my people and make peace? It provided excellent tension and, yes, immersion in Civ 4.

Trade-offs lead to interesting decisions, and sometimes 'trade-offs' mean having 'negatives' in the game. The idea that games should only be 100% positive (just with "more" positives and "less" positives) is a passing fad, and nothing more.