Justification for war
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.
I agree with you 100%.
It sucks to not know why things are happening. I'd love to be able to negotiate with someone if they're attacking me. 'What, you want some copper and will attack me unless you get some? Fine, here's your damn copper, now go home'.
Cool idea. Mostly an AI issue.
It's really a great idea. It would almost add something of a RPG if your neighbours went to war over religion. I mean imagine some civilization going on a crusade to spread their faith, maybe more and more would join up and things snow-ball to world war
And what if you could use spies or a special unit to 'discover' these things ?
I mean ... it's not any country would openly admit to 'need oil' for example.
I would recommend keeping it simple though, because such things can get rather complicated.
You could also allow the user to specify their goals when they go to war. That way the ai knows what it needs to do to appease you.
I agree. It's really another example of the developers not quite being in the right headspace in the past, regarding AI programing as the main part of a turn-based game programing. I would love if they really focus on AI this time around.
These War justifications should also give certain peace options certain outcomes, say winning a religious war should allow you to force convert the other nation at no relation penalty with other nations, while taking territory should make other nations hate you more. :P
Civ 4's diplomatic counters kept a good track of reasons why or why not a civ would go to war with you.
One of the reasons why I usually go to war is summed up in the AI's "our boarders are too close". I usually have a manifest destiny approach. I want to control my whole continent. Even friends are a blemish when their colors are somewhere on my piece of land. Bwahahaha.
Some of the aggrestion is based of their leader personality or it may just be because they know they can destroy you
Originally Posted by Harle
This is kind of a simplification, but aggression in past games have pretty much been comparing whether or not you gave them free crap, compared against your status as a military threat. Either they are at peace with you or they want to bury your entire civilization. It is more than a little extreme.
Originally Posted by Ziggyz
I always hated that every time there was a fight it was always to my death, or until I got tired of fighting a particular foe. They only relented when you were winning.
In reality, war is expensive and exhausting for the nation at war, even when winning. If the war is about X then it doesn't make sense to spend piles of money and human lives just to wipe out another civilization just 'cuz you wanted some ivory.
If I am losing a war against another nation I'd love to be able to just say 'alright, take this city, just no more deaths' and have them agree to a ceasefire. Because let's be honest, generally speaking in civ, the one with the most military tech wins. If you focus on social and trade stuff then you'll get rolled the second an AI decides it doesn't like your face. Some diplomatic ways of dealing with war would be nice.
Especially if certain social technologies/wonders could impose a war justification penalty on AI, making them less likely to attack/more likely to accept peace.
this is something that i would like to see to or at least make it a little more realistic like actually having a frontline instead of just stacks like someone else said. Stacks get old if there is a way to get rid of it like limiting the number of units in a tile then i say go as for the justification of war that would be great especially if the AI took casulties into account since thats always been a major deciding factor in war.
Maybe frontlines could be defined by building temporary defenses (aka trenches, defense boosters that could aid you in a defensive situation).
Look at history gentlemen the justification fo a lot of wrs especially early on was little more than You don't have a lot of troops I think I can kick your butt. Civ iv tend to work that way especially once everyone's staked out their territiry... Every one starts looking for weak sisters to pick off.
Excellent, and if one were able to steal their contingency plans via spies & diplomats....
Or sabotage their defenses for that matter.