Disclaimer: based the current opt-in beta 6.2
I am currently in a game in a game on a gigantic map with 7 other civilizations on though difficulty (i.e. every a.i. is genius). I am currently the second best civ score wise.
The leading civilization declared war on me, so i bribed every other civ to declare war on the leading a.i. (not that i care much because the a.i. is not good at waging a decisive short war of conquest*). It then struck me that doing so would in the end just feed my opponent with even more worlds and make him stronger to beat later on.
When i started the game the Krynn declared war on me and i wiped them out. I had the malevolent eager ideology as well the patriotic ability, i.e. war does only one thing for me: make me stronger, e.g. my approval on my older worlds is 50+ base pop now. Every world i conquer makes my other worlds more happy, makes my economy stronger and weakening my opponents. Why shouldn't i be at war, as long as i can win it?
Coming from Europa Universalis it really struck me that there is no downside for war. Just as an counter example, when you win a war in EU4, you risk of heavily destabilizing your country, when you take too much land and it is very likely that there will form major coalitions against you for being a warmonger. While i do not ask for a system as in EU4, i would like a cost associated to war:
-When i wage an offensive war of extermination (as in the default war in GalCiv 3), why do my citizens not rebel (unless being Yor or Drengin)? Why do other races stand by and watch the rise of a all-consuming monster?
-Why don't i get economic bonuses when a war of extermination is declared on me? I sure would work a lot harder if i knew aliens would come for my precious bodily fluids.
-Why are there no different kind of wars (border line disputes, war around a strategic planets/starbase/resources, trade wars, show of force and so on)?
-Why is there no war exhaustion when i throw billions of my citizens at my enemy? One day they work in a factory buildings ships, the next day they are shipped off to die.
-Why is every citizen a combatant? Why is there no dedicated soldier class? How is it possible that a world of scientists all take up arms?
-Why is there no sort of empire morale that is affected when you loose whole fleets or have major victories?
-When i stab a long term ally in the back and exterminate their population by orbital bombardment, why do i not face major upheavals from my citizens?
Imho the diplomatic, economic and internal aspects of war are really underwhelming at the moment. Incidentally such systems could give a lot of depth to certain civilizations. I would really welcome a much deeper war/diplomatic system and some form of internal politics.
*i.e. building up fast ships to surgically take out ship yards and weak star bases, nor does it prepare for war with prebuild invasion fleets at the border etc. usually war against the a.i. ramp up slowly and are better described as war by exhaustion, than strategy and tactics.
"Quintili Vare, legiones redde!“
Yes, this game needs a war weariness factor, and a hegemony factor, at least.
There should also be requirements to assist your allies vs just the occasional gift of bc and a few ships (if you are willing). Alliances in this game mean nothing more than you are one step closer to an alliance victory.
there is only one reason for all of the above: The game is called galactic civilizations 3.
Brad could elect to implement what you are asking, but then he should also change the name of the game to "milky way universalis".
can you elaborate on this? are you saying you are content with the current diplomacy because this game's predecessor was galciv2?
i never asked for anything specifically. i just made the observation that:
1) diplomacy is not very immersive
2) it makes the game one-dimensional gameplay wise. (too much of a wargame, less of a civ game)
i just mentioned EU4 for the stark contrast between the diplomacy systems, i never asked to adopt the diplomacy system of EU4, but i would like more depth to the current diplo system.
I expected a reaction from those who perceive the game as a 4X shooter
i never asked for anything specifically. i just made the observation that:1) diplomacy is not very immersive2) it makes the game one-dimensional gameplay wise. (too much of a wargame, less of a civ game)i just mentioned EU4 for the stark contrast between the diplomacy systems, i never asked to adopt the diplomacy system of EU4, but i would like more depth to the current diplo system.
if the game "improves" these features it will also change it's identity and that's not a good thing.
i don't think it will be as far-reaching as changing the identity of the game, but i get your point (being a traditionalist i assume). i think there is a place for any game between gameplay stagnation and over innovation and broad statements (without naming particular issues) will get us nowhere imho.
There are a few consequences for war:
1) It takes population to invade planets. This means you have to weaken one of your planets to take another one.
2) Diplomacy. People will like you less. I have to admit, this matters less when you are killing them all anyway.
3) Approval penalty. You have skirted this, and it isn't that severe anyway, but too many planets can cause some trouble.
4) Oppertunity cost of military force: that production could have been used to get more research, money, or to improve your planets.
I don't disagree that maintaining a constant state of war is probably a little too uncomplicated in this game, but it is not without its costs.
yes, i think i had too much of an advantage:
1) played a custom synthetic race -> population is quickly replaced (1-3 turns)
2) not really, since war was declared on me and i bribed all other civs to join my "defensive" war
3) patriotic trait + malevolent eager
4) imho that is very minor because i always set up manufacturing worlds, the few turns spend to crank out invasion ships instead of combat ships are negligible.
even without those bonuses affecting me, i would still say that the opportunity cost are far out outweigh the gains of getting more planets. you could pretty much assign the same points to colonization (with the exception of 2).
Precisely. GC3 has every bug and disadvantage GC2 had and noone seems to be making effort to change this.
In Sid Meyer's they impose on warmongers quite heavily to eliminate reasons for endless war. Maybe some of their gains should be implemented here? Things like war weariness or morale penalty for every occupied planet.
i am not so much against endless war, but would like to see more dimensions to it. something more than: do i have the better military? if yes declare war.
to come back to EU4: it is basically a war game, but war has so many dimensions to it, e.g. allying with a big power -> start a war -> give them tons of provinces during peace and watch them break apart from internal turmoil because you gave them too much land , making them ripe for conquest.
Things like war weariness or morale penalty for every occupied planet.
personally i would go with something like this (just a quick draft):
1) Different kinds of war:
-War of extermination: every world invaded fights to the death, i.e. much higher casualties on both sides. successful conquered planets are immediately under your control, for declaring such a war you gain heavy diplomatic penalty with good races, medium diplomatic penalty with pragmatic races)
-War of conquest/occupation: every world invaded only fights with a fraction of it's citizens, medium diplomatic penalty with good races, conquered planets take a couple of turns of unrest until they come under you control, based on how large the conquered population is
-Show of Force: can't invade planets, planets/starbases of the defeated faction are cheaper during peace negotiations, gain negative diplomatic relation with malevolent races (they see this as an action of a weakling)
2) Morale:
-Affects combat (ship and ground) stats
-gain morale for successful actions like defeating ships and invading planets and loose morale for loosing ships/planets
-Depending on your alignment or race and the type of war declared, e.g.:
If benevolent Altarians declare war of extermination they start with negative morale; however if malevolent Drengin start a war of extermination they start with positive morale.
Yor would always have neutral morale (no morale chips installed)
If someone declares war of extermination on you, you start with high morale
If someone declares a Show of Force on you, your initial moral is dependent on the average approval of your citizens compared to that of the enemy (maybe your troops don't want to fight for your evil empire and see your rule as more evil than the enemies)
3) War exhaustion:
-Affects population growth and economy
-goes up, depending on troops lost (mostly during invasions be it defending or attacking)
-declines during peace time
-races with high war exhaustion are much less likely to declare war
Interesting idea, a well thought out set of consequences. At the moment I really enjoy the game but I get your point and agree that some of the functions could become more immersive.
I play another game called Making History that lets you alter history by re-fighting WWII, WWI, etc.
You get a penalty for war weariness, logistic penalties, and when you conquer a city, you can use the city for production, with a penalty, but you can't recruit troops from the population until you have conquered the entire county or made peace based on existing borders. If you are weaker than the greater nations there are serious hegemony implications from starting a war.
We have learned a lot about war weariness in the last century. Your people love you when you are winning, in spite of casualties, if there are spoils (Nazis/lebensraum). Your cause has a lot to do with taking casualties, (fighting at home or for freedom), and your population will not tolerate body bags beyond a year in any localized foreign war. Excuse the oversimplification.
I can say, broadly speaking, we are only at the beginning of the sophistication of this system.
One big difference from GalCiv II is that all the things you're talking about is data driven as opposed to C++.
that is good to hear frogboy. can you please elaborate on your last point (the data driven part)? are you sampling meta data that goes back into the ai decision making?
I think "military force" included "combat ships" as well. You could instead build constructors-->starbases which would enhance everything else instead of military power.
Also, before you can take away worlds from the AI you'll have to squash his defenses, which should be accompanied by own loss of ships. In a way, war is a comparison of each sides military output with the technological level reflecting the quality of it. Being too tight up in awar should result in a civ to face too many losses, weakening its military power and thereby make that civ defenseless to other potential foes. That you can use the other AI to declare war on your next target, let them clear out the way for you, is something that should be addressed, or make harder to be achieved.
I think that the different races should react to war in different ways. Warlike Malevolent races should perhaps enjoy war (think Klingon) but, it should still have an economic and political impact. It should hurt technological advancement, cut back on Civil liberties and generally hurt them because war is expensive in terms of man, money and resources.
Pragmatic races would probably want trade rather than war, or would want to sell to parties who are at war... but not be involved themselves.
Benevolent races would want to avoid war where possible.
There needs to be war weariness, some effect on production and research as war drags on and on. But, there also has to be diplomatic solutions to war that are viable.
I could see the need for some *war weariness* factor, but, it would also be civilization/race based. The Xor/Borg wouldn't get war weary at all, while something like the humans/federation would. Some considerations would need to be made. It holds up and could be interesting in theory though, especially for a more pacifist society or civilization/race.
+1 to liking the idea of a war weariness mechanic, with some adjustments for each race. E.g. for Drengin the weariness should occur if they are at peace for too long, etc.
Sure.
So, in GalCiv II, all the variables were done by me in C++ code. If someone didn't like a decision I made, they would post and I would look into it.
But in GalCiv III, it's all in XML files.
There is a directory called \data\game in the galciv3 directory. Inside of there is all the data including factiondefs and aistrategies.
What I predict is going to happen during the GalCiv III lifetime is that modders will improve on what we've done and then we'll slowly adopt them into the base game.
Even the spending sliders are in there. And players can even make more (it's all extensible).
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
