I've never been very happy with the way the AI handles war and aggression. It seems almost impossible to understand the motives for aggression, and impossible to appease an enemy when they are winning a war. Wars aren't always quite this dramatic.
It would be nice if the AI had a list of 'justifications for war' that triggered the war in the first place, and as that list is filled, it becomes progressively easier to request peace.
For example, if a hostile nation invades because it wants a particular city, a particular resource, and because they dislike your religion, and they succeed, then these justifications should be visible to the player, and the enemy should become more willing to make peace as these these justifications are resolved(by taking that city, spreading their territory around a resource, or by demanding that you change your religion).
Each justification could have a value based on how developed a city is, how badly the nation needs a resource, and for religion, how bad your diplomatic relations are(bad relations would put more value on religion changes).
This would open up some interesting options for ending a war by doing something like changing your religion to that of an enemy. Or by trading them a resource for free. Or giving them a city.
The problem with old systems of diplomacy is that other nations just randomly demand stuff, and you say no, and either they grumble and leave or they get angry and attack, but those demands have nothing to do with the invasion beyond that point. It's like they've forgotten the reason for the war and suddenly it's purely about conquering your entire nation.
I'd like to see some consistency; if a nation invades because they want something, they should be equally placated once they have gotten what they wanted.
Of course those are just three justifications, and there could be many more. Some justifications would be harder to deal with, like just purely bad relations, or your use of nuclear weapons, or their own government(absolute governments and the like would come with different innate war justifications) or whatever. These would be the kinds of things that, when combined, can prevent peace from being accepted even when the material demands have been met. So total conquest would still happen.
Anyway, just a thought. I'd like for war to be more complex and diplomatic in nature. War is a kind of diplomacy, just a very heavy-handed kind. Ultimately war is to achieve a goal, and that goal shouldn't always be total conquest for the AI.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Harle
