Should there be a penalty to war?

from GalCiv2 Forums
Just thinking about the way some wars get pointless, and the way some weaklings seem to like to declare for no obviously good reason.

So I'm wondering if there either is, or should be some mechanism (ala war weariness from Civ) to tie warring more closely to the economy.

Basically some penalty to morale (and maybe a bonus for some races, or depending on how the war is fairing) for entering into 'unwinnable' wars, or for wars which drag on too long, or for situations where alot of ships/planets are lost quickly.

Opinions?
13,896 views 12 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
That's only because the military rating is a bit screwy. Races shouldn't declare war if they don't have an advantage - with the exception that Good and Evil should always try to get rid of each other if possible.

I think War already has an effect on morale and the economy.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
There should be some penalty to breaking alliances also.It just seems to dam easy to abuse A.I alliances for your own agenda, he helps you,you never help poor A.I.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
There should be some penalty to breaking alliances also.It just seems to dam easy to abuse A.I alliances for your own agenda, he helps you,you never help poor A.I.


agreed! Right now it isn't hard to re-ally after breaking an alliance. I would never re-ally with someone who dropped me at the first sign of trouble!
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Interesting ideas ... although I think 'war weariness' might be better tied to a civ's governmental policy, not just its morale. Governments that are imperialist in nature should be able to force its military into service, whereas more deomocracic governments should suffer from setbacks if the war effort is going badly.

One thing I would like to see is war having more of an impact on diplomatic relationships among Civs that are not involved in the war. I've played several games now where one or two civs end up dominating the galaxy with military might, while the rest of the civs either do nothing about it, or simply continue their pointless, ineffectual squabbles with each other. The main reason for this is that powerful civs more or less enjoy diplomatic and political superiority/immunity early in the game., and can easily sustain it (unless someone attacks them.) Their relationships with other civs never seem to break down, because the other civs are too involved with pointless skirmishes with other lesser races, or they simply do nothing, while they wait in fear.

In cases where most of the galaxy is populated by weaker civs, this may make sense. But in cases where there are other civs that are strong enough to pose a threat to a significant military civ---as in the early game, before any galactic superpower has a chance to form---the military-diplomacy-relationship model seems to have no affect on AI controlled civs.

I would like to see the AI 'gang up' on a potential threat instead of just sitting there, waiting for the inevitable invasion. To that end, I think war-mongering civs should incur a kind of 'hit' to their galactic relationships with other civs, even civs that they are not at war with should see them as a growing threat, and adjust their relationship accordingly. It seems like the AI controlled civs just don't care that a rogue race or two is running around the galaxy, destroying worlds. The AI controleld civs just 'make nice' with every war-mondering civ out there ... only to get screwed over by them in the late game.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
#4.
One thing I would like to see is war having more of an impact on diplomatic relationships among Civs that are not involved in the war. I've played several games now where one or two civs end up dominating the galaxy with military might, while the rest of the civs either do nothing about it, or simply continue their pointless, ineffectual squabbles with each other.


Sometimes yes. But I often, when playing a game and a similar situation occurs, get offers from other weaker Civ's to quickly put up some money and forces together, so we can eliminate the growing threat without having to form an allience. I mostly take that offer cuz suddenly you have 2-3 Civ's joining you in a war against one dominant Civ, so everybody get their shares in the end.

Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
But I often, when playing a game and a similar situation occurs, get offers from other weaker Civ's to quickly put up some money and forces together, so we can eliminate the growing threat without having to form an allience. I mostly take that offer cuz suddenly you have 2-3 Civ's joining you in a war against one dominant Civ, so everybody get their shares in the end.[/quote

how does that work? I get these quite a lot and I go 'okay' but nothing really happens.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This is not Civilization. I like Galciv2 doing it their way. Besides, these wars are not humans killing each other--we're killing aliens.

What I do wish, though, is that the AI would offer you cash to attack somebody sometimes. We're doing that to the AI all the time. I guess the question is, how do you enforce that you indeed do attack.... That shouldn't be too difficult--simply put your two races instantly at war, and disable the Peace option until you attack.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
#6
how does that work? I get these quite a lot and I go 'okay' but nothing really happens.


When the other Civ's ask you that, you then ask them to choose the attack option at that particular Civ immidiately. And then when they agree, you can declare war on the targeted Civ.
Simple as that, but you must be skillful in your diplomacy if you are the one requesting the attack.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Incidentally there is a united planets law that makes any civ at war take a 20% hit to their economy, I got this law passed playing as a manipulative yet peaceful influencer and had already bribed every other civ to go to war.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I hated war weariness. Teaching the AI not to stupidly declare suicidal wars all the time would be enough.

Having wars significantly lower the votes that certain political parties receive at election time would be nice, though. So long as it wasn't as simple as getting peace the turn before an election and re-declaring war the turn after.
CERTAIN POLITICAL PARTIES
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Isn't the war itself enough of a penalty? I mean, really, isn't having to divert a significant portion of your money into military strength enough of a penalty? Let alone the possibility of having your trade interdicted. Why bother imposing more of a penalty on war than already exists?
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Isn't the war itself enough of a penalty? I mean, really, isn't having to divert a significant portion of your money into military strength enough of a penalty? Let alone the possibility of having your trade interdicted. Why bother imposing more of a penalty on war than already exists?


This is an issue for the attacki, not the attacker. After all the warmonger is already building his empire for this very reason.

I'm not sure how to handle the two sides of the issue though. I do not think that there should be just one penalty to a war, I think that there should be scaled bonus/penalty depending on how well the war is going, what gov you have, etc.

Though cleaning up the diplomacy of war would help alot too.