Civ V could use a war penalty, a la war weariness

[tviceman]

The problem without some sort of cumulative (or constant negative) penalty for being at war is that an aggressor who is starting to steam roll an opponent has ZERO incentive for peace, which makes the weaker player even that much more weaker. There were plenty of games I have played in Civ 4 where I could have kept attacking my opponent (or AI), but asking for peace was a better immediate alternative for me due to the amount of unhappiness I had accumulated from fighting so much in his territory.

Also, SDI. Civ V needs a possible defense against abombs and nukes.

[dieffenbachj]

The problem without some sort of cumulative (or constant negative) penalty for being at war is that an aggressor who is starting to steam roll an opponent has ZERO incentive for peace, which makes the weaker player even that much more weaker. There were plenty of games I have played in Civ 4 where I could have kept attacking my opponent (or AI), but asking for peace was a better immediate alternative for me due to the amount of unhappiness I had accumulated from fighting so much in his territory.

Also, SDI. Civ V needs a possible defense against abombs and nukes.

Um... every city you conquer adds unhappiness, and rarely come with any happiness buildings. If you keep up the conquest, you'll wind up in the red--and one time, I accepted a surrender with a mountain of territories, only to be at -100 unhappiness. I then spent the next era of the game guarding against rebels.

And if you're being conquered, at least by a human, and you have no hope of stopping him through force, destroying all of your own happiness buildings before he takes you over could save you in the long run.

[Artifex]

War weariness as a concept comes from losing armies and treasure.

Alexander didn't decide he was doing too well so it was time to turn around and go home.
Kubli Khan was not a pacifist despite his nation having already endured a generation of warfare.

So really it should be that if you are losing armies and getting nowhere, you should have incentives to make peace... and you do, naturally.
So what is the problem again?

[Vlynor]

Um... every city you conquer adds unhappiness, and rarely come with any happiness buildings. If you keep up the conquest, you'll wind up in the red--and one time, I accepted a surrender with a mountain of territories, only to be at -100 unhappiness. I then spent the next era of the game guarding against rebels.

And if you're being conquered, at least by a human, and you have no hope of stopping him through force, destroying all of your own happiness buildings before he takes you over could save you in the long run.

Did you at least Annex them and build/buy a courthouse? That takes gives you a large amount of happiness. If you eventually flipped all of them to an annex, your happiness would've been positive.

[circuitrider]

Yes, I suppose Civ V could have a disincentive for continuing war. But, then again I think it already does.

My opinion: leave it the way it was. I felt the war weariness in Civ IV seemed artificial. If you are winning, you can still continue. If you are losing, you are losing.

BTW I'm in a war now. Just consulted my military advisor who states I seem to be overpowered by my enemy and should sue for peace. But, later as I click through the rest of his advice, he suggests I should push forward and gain victory.

I guess I should follow his advice.

[VicRatlhead51]

It takes long enough to win a dom victory while dealing with the unhappiness of your conquests without war weariness slowing you down even more. Smaller civs just need to play better defense and conserve troops as much as possible.

The only thing I might like to see is maybe some kind of happiness penalty for using nukes. In the current system they get dropped left and right.

[Tahitian Moon]

I agree we need a nuke defense, hopefully there's a building or national wonder in GAK that deals with it.

Also, I like the idea for a happiness penalty for nukes. Could be for a set amount of turns, like a negative golden age.

[SlickSlicer]

War Weariness is a bad idea. Essentially it encourages players or factions in general who manage to avoid warfare the whole game. It works in Paradox's games because they are different kinds of games. It is terrible in Civilization. I think it was in Civ IV, and if so it was one of a number of things that made me hate everything having to do with Civ IV's combat.

From a gameplay perspective, anything that greatly discourages combat in Civilization is not a great idea.

[Taciturn Scot]

Perhaps if rebels were more effective, we could happily do without war weariness. It's not that hard to deal with rebellions caused by excessive unhappiness at the moment. The AI can't do war properly yet and so it's not much of a disincentive to rampant conquering. In fact, excessive unhappiness doesn't really hurt the player enough. Better if your actual military units in the field rebelled. That would really stuff up your plans for conquest

[Magic_Hotdog]

No. It adds nothing to the game.

[VicRatlhead51]

I agree we need a nuke defense, hopefully there's a building or national wonder in GAK that deals with it.

Also, I like the idea for a happiness penalty for nukes. Could be for a set amount of turns, like a negative golden age.

It would be more accurate. The ethical justification of the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is still debated today. Watching a Civ in game drop them every few turns seems just off to me. Didn't they have something in 4 where the other Civs would get negative relations bumps with anyone who deployed nukes?

[tfordp]

Didn't they have something in 4 where the other Civs would get negative relations bumps with anyone who deployed nukes?

Yes, to the point of DoW if you used a nuke.

[VicRatlhead51]

That's what I thought. It seems strange that there isn't any penalty now. Of course usually by the time nukes get discovered with the current diplomacy scheme everyone probably already hates you anyway.

[oblio]

Maybe the issue with war is more that at higher playing levels the AI gets advantages that influence happiness that the human player doesn't get. So if a human player takes a city the happiness hit can often put you into the red but if the AI does the same, maybe they have so much excess it doesn't matter. The AI may also puppet a lot more than a typical human player so no real cost to keep warring.

It seems the only time the AI will stop a war is if game conditions change so that the Civ's chosen victory path has to change or is threatened. Self interest is maybe more realistic than any war weariness cause.

[SilentWulf]

I would like to see a war having some kind of influence on my overall empire, since I think that warfare is still too powerful in CiV compared to other strategies. (I am playing on lower difficulties though, so that might not be an absolute statement.)

I would include some mechanic though to counter that effect, for example an investment of gold or other resources, symbolizing some kind of probaganda, with which the people are influenced to support the war.

Alternatively, if additional unhappiniess is not the right way to go, I could imagin some kind of upkeep if your soldiers are in foreign countries, symbolizing some kind of supply line that has to be kept up. This could increase with larger distances making the invasion of far continents costly.

[TDZGamer]

For those who don't think this game has war weariness, try playing on King or higher. At Prince or lower you basically just cash out Courthouses and youll be fine. On King or higher you basically must have Autocracy->Police State or you will need to take a break from conquering after every city. As for nukes, by the time I can use them I usually pissed everyone off so much taking city states it is all out war anyway.

I think the war mechanics are fine. Tweaks could probably easily be done with mods for those that want to go down that route.

What I miss the most is Advanced Start, because that really helped make an even battlefield. Now you need to be somewhat lucky with goody huts or its new game by turn 50.

Also the game needs a function to save the game setup. At the moment you can only pre-configure multiplayer game it seems and only by messing with .ini files.

(BTW I mostly play Huge, Standard Paced, Continents with 9 players, only Domination victory condition)

[steveg700]

War Weariness is a bad idea. Essentially it encourages players or factions in general who manage to avoid warfare the whole game. It works in Paradox's games because they are different kinds of games. It is terrible in Civilization. I think it was in Civ IV, and if so it was one of a number of things that made me hate everything having to do with Civ IV's combat.

From a gameplay perspective, anything that greatly discourages combat in Civilization is not a great idea.

Why? Warmongering should be what Civ is all about?

[VicRatlhead51]

Why? Warmongering should be what Civ is all about?

No but it is a big part of the game even if its jut defending your empire. If they made war too frustrating half the players would probably quit especially since the combat system is the best improvement they made in five. Some might say the only improvement.

[SlickSlicer]

Why? Warmongering should be what Civ is all about?

I'd rather have that than the game actively discouraging you from waging war. Civ V's combat is much better than Civ IV's. Let's keep it that way.

[builder680]

For those who don't think this game has war weariness, try playing on King or higher. At Prince or lower you basically just cash out Courthouses and youll be fine. On King or higher you basically must have Autocracy->Police State or you will need to take a break from conquering after every city.

This is just flat not true. I have played almost exclusively on emperor or above... Huge maps, dozens upon dozens of cities. After you get your civ really steamrolling with production, happiness is never a problem again, unless you annex entire continents at a time (which I sometimes do). I very rarely use autocracy.

[steveg700]

No but it is a big part of the game even if its jut defending your empire. If they made war too frustrating half the players would probably quit especially since the combat system is the best improvement they made in five.

I'd rather have that than the game actively discouraging you from waging war. Civ V's combat is much better than Civ IV's. Let's keep it that way.

False dichotomy. Facilitating warmongering and discouraging war completely aren't the only two options, and what's being suggested by the OP isn't either of them.

What is being suggested is that there be some checks and balances that keep the game from snowballing into one civ's favor. Right now, a winning civ can mount a strong opening offesnive and it's all over but the crying. The attacked civ's defenses get crushed and it usually doesn't have time to get a second wind. If the latter didn't have sufficient defensive units at the battle's onset then he's toast.

The arugment against war weariness mostly just amount to *wanting* the convenience of a snowball effect, and wanting wars to be decided by cheap-shot rushes, because their strategy (such as it is) is built around it. It's something I've become quite accustomed to time and again in this forum. People here advocate early-rush tactics. People here complain about AI insta-heals. And they are actively opposed to the idea that their victims should get enough of a breather to be able to mount a counter-offensive.

Basically, the typical approach to war right now is to size up another civ's current forces, build up an overwhelming attack force, and blindside them. Blitzkrieg tactics require little skill or daring.

War weariness doesn't outright deter war, it just means wars won't have such a tendency to be decided before they've been declared.

[TDZGamer]

This is just flat not true. I have played almost exclusively on emperor or above... Huge maps, dozens upon dozens of cities. After you get your civ really steamrolling with production, happiness is never a problem again, unless you annex entire continents at a time (which I sometimes do). I very rarely use autocracy.

Then I am clearly out of my league

[builder680]

Maybe not, TDZ. I think it's just that you may not have tried other approaches. I'm partial to Freedom, myself (also Rationalism - with lots of specialists). Funnily enough, I usually play as Russia. Heh.

[TDZGamer]

False dichotomy. Those aren't the only two options, and what's being suggested by the OP isn't either of them.

What is being suggested is that there be some checks and balances that keep the game from snowballing into one civ's favor. Right now, a winning civ can mount a tireless offesnive push and the losing civ usually doesn't have time to get a second wind. If the latter didn't have sufficient defensive units at the battle's onset then he's toast.

The responses in this thread against war weariness mostly just amount to *wanting* the convenience of a snowball effect, because their strategy (such as it is) is built around it. It's something I've become quite accustomed to time and again in this forum. People here advocate early-rush tactics. People here complain about AI insta-heals. And they are actively opposed to the idea that their victims should get enough of a breather to be able to mount a counter-offensive.

Basically, theiir approach to war to size up another civ's current forces, build up an overwhelming attack force, and blindside them. Blitzkrieg tactics and little else.

War weariness doesn't outright deter war, it simply allows for some push-and-pull. It means the outcomes of wars won't have the tendency to be decided before they're even declared.

Look at the real world. Many nations survive long wars without "weariness". USA has always been at war somewhere in the world and americans overall seem pretty proud of their country. Israel has been at war for thousands of years and still kicking ass! War weariness should only be an issue when the war is taxing the nations emergency reserves. If the player can balance the economy and keep growing while waging war, he is simply playing well. Unhappiness IS the war weariness mechanics. I realize some players are so good that Emperor is no challenge and thats fine. I am guessing that most of us find King difficulty to be the sweet spot.

[TDZGamer]

Maybe not, TDZ. I think it's just that you may not have tried other approaches. I'm partial to Freedom, myself (also Rationalism - with lots of specialists). Funnily enough, I usually play as Russia. Heh.

I have never succeeded at King without going for Honor and Tradition. The culture bonus from killing barbarians is indispensable. I desperately need the growth bonus so I can focus my citizens on production and science. By the time I am ready to expand beyond those two policies I am usually defending one or two flanks agains relentless AI assaults and need to support a big army so Autocracy becomes a necessity. Especially when I finally go on the offensive to obliterate a flank. I even raze and starve cities to hold unhappiness at bay.

BTW I always play with raging barbarians so maybe thats why

[steveg700]

Look at the real world. Many nations survive long wars without "weariness". USA has always been at war somewhere in the world and americans overall seem pretty proud of their country. Israel has been at war for thousands of years and still kicking ass!

I'd actually say that many if not most Americans got pretty damn weary of recent warmongering efforts. The state of Israel has only really existed since the end of WWII, and since that time it hasn't engaged in any prolonged wars. Nor has it actually expanded its territory. Pretty bad example all around, actually.

And besides the point to boot. We're talking about game balance, not pseudo-history.

I have never succeeded at King without going for Honor and Tradition.

The original intent was for the later-era sopols to be more attractive, but currently Honor and Tradition are as worthwhile as anything, and the capstone benefit for completing them makes it a no-brainer to top them off before opening new trees.

[TDZGamer]

I'd actually say that many if not most Americans got pretty damn weary of recent warmongering efforts. The state of Israel has only really existed since the end of WWII, and since that time it hasn't engaged in any prolonged wars. Nor has it actually expanded its territory. Pretty bad example all around, actually.

And besides the point to boot. We're talking about game balance, not pseudo-history.

Fair enough, but my point was really that the game HAS a war weariness mechanic, namely unhappiness. If it is not sufficient for a few elite players, maybe they ought to look around for a mod that makes it harder

That being said I am always for more options in game setup, and for the love of god please let us save and load game setups!

As for game balance in general I found that the Advanced Start feature in BTS pretty much made it easy to get a balanced game going. If you start with 3-4 cities and a few techs, it is easier to equalize a disadvantaged position and luck with goody huts will mean less.

[SlickSlicer]

Steve, all I can say is that I'd rather the game not punish players who take the initiative to go on offenses. This is a problem I had with Civilization IV. It made defending yourself way too easy...it offered a lot of leeway should you mess up initially, it made war extremely penalizing, to the extent of affecting your research (which does not make sense to me), culture and other aspects. Then on top of all that, a conquered city might flip back due to culture not being in your favor.

I don't find the current system problematic. Defenders still have an advantage because they have cities that they can hide behind, movement bonuses within their territory and a shorter supply line. If they have defense buildings in some of their cities, they have ample opportunity to resist. I feel like the current system, if anything, is more balanced. There doesn't need to be checks and balances on a winning player. If the player has outmatched his opponent, which is hard enough since defenders already have an advantage, he deserves to be able to ride the momentum of his victory, not be arbitrarily screwed over by a game mechanic. In larger games, the aspect of multiple factions usually can serve as a check on unrestrained success, as the possibility of alliances and "everybody against the big guy" can weigh in.

[ddesart]

Steve, all I can say is that I'd rather the game not punish players who take the initiative to go on offenses. This is a problem I had with Civilization IV. It made defending yourself way too easy...it offered a lot of leeway should you mess up initially, it made war extremely penalizing, to the extent of affecting your research (which does not make sense to me), culture and other aspects. Then on top of all that, a conquered city might flip back due to culture not being in your favor.

I don't find the current system problematic. Defenders still have an advantage because they have cities that they can hide behind, movement bonuses within their territory and a shorter supply line. If they have defense buildings in some of their cities, they have ample opportunity to resist. I feel like the current system, if anything, is more balanced. There doesn't need to be checks and balances on a winning player. If the player has outmatched his opponent, which is hard enough since defenders already have an advantage, he deserves to be able to ride the momentum of his victory, not be arbitrarily screwed over by a game mechanic. In larger games, the aspect of multiple factions usually can serve as a check on unrestrained success, as the possibility of alliances and "everybody against the big guy" can weigh in.

I agree, we already get a penalty with captured enemy cities generating unhappiness until a courthouse is built...I really didn't like the war weariness in Civ 4, one of the many things I didn't like in Civ 4. I think that they have made a lot of changes for the betterment of the game, and they will only get better...imo