So you all think the casus belli will fix those problems with the AI? Also, any guesses on the remaining 1 or 2 not yet revealed? I think my guesses are reasonable but probably wrong. If you want to support the channel, buy games using this *GOG* referral link: af.gog.com/?as=1715648857 They have lots of sales... Thanks!
The thing about domination victory, in Civ 5, you'd get denounced and hated even if you were justified in your wars, so nothing changes for domination haha. Also, people have been asking for casus belli for years now. When researching, I saw threads from 2008 saying casus belli might be a good idea for Civ. Link for source: forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=278579
See !that's why I always come to this channel for Civilization VI news.I always wondering about this new complexities in declaration of war (warmonger penalties) ..never got a proper explanation though. Thanks again zakh! ..as always best narration in you tube for me .. "war..war never changes..except for civ ..it does a li'll bit.. :D ".. keep up the good work!
I wonder what happens if you join an ally in a war. Is your friend casus belli gonna be applied to you? Like "hey, join me in this war to liberate city_state_name"
I'm pretty sure the AI would still be pretty idiotic at diplomacy. In addition to warmongering points there should be at least some basic self-preservation mechanic. Instead it was more like "Warmonger! I denounce you! My spearmen will tear down your demonic nuclear rockets for the greater good" and then estimated time of existence of three turns. Besides, your allies who happened to be your "partners in crime" and benefited widely from spoils tended to attack you eventually even if they were vastly weaker. Oh, and I only got "fear" reaction from the AI once. I was ahead of it few eras, and fear only lasted 10 turns or so. Then the AI proceeded to denounce and threaten. If you're weaker than the AI, its even more fun: it never, never refuses to attack you, even if it is some sort of "peace-centered civ". In Civ5 it always failed to calculate opponent's strength too. Tl;dr: no, it will not fix problem with the AI, 'cause for decent diplomacy game you'd need an actual AI.
That and having the ability to ask the AI to move it's troops away from your borders and if they don't it's a just war. have it kind of like the Formal war requiring a denunciation, you ask AI to move it's units from your borders, if within 10 (or 5, but feel 10 is better) turns, they don't reduce the units around your borders by half you are justified in attacking them if done withing 3-5 turns.
Wish you could decided not to have a specific civ in your game it gets really annoying to deal with Victoria just showing up and being like hey er whads going on in here and settle in territory that you where gonna expand into then they get mad at you for settling too close moral of the story I hate playing with England
I love this change, it will help structure multiplayer with friends, not that warmongering penalities apply but having an ingame justification helps the immersion. As for actual multiplayer this causus belli system seems irrelevant unless there's more significant bonuses for having a just war (reduced warmongering is hardly relevant to a competetive free for all match).
That's why I'm wondering if the warmongering penalty will apply to anything else. If it had a sway on city-states or some effect later on when the World Congress comes into play it would have consequence in multiplayer. No details on that yet though.
It would be neat if warmongering would also influence the unrest among your population for example. So if you have an justified casus belli / no warmongering points are in play your population will not give unhappiness or even give a higher happiness temporarily, while plain warmongering without reason (of course higher penalty for a surprise war compared to the formal war) gives higher unrest/unhappiness unless your state is developed as an warmongering state (which gives lower trust levels maybe then by the AI?).
+GamerZakh it could be a happiness effect because a liberation or holy war could rally a population as opposed to a surprise war where the people won't be as keen this decreasing happiness ( but only after the renaissance.
Sir Baldrick I'm curious to find out how happiness will work in Civ 6 not seen any info on it (plus I saw something about 'housing' not sure if anyone else caught wind of it).
The casus belli are excellent in that they let you deal with limited military conflict while still leaving you in control of your diplomatic status, which is exactly what you need for players to have a meaningful diplomatic strategy. There needs to be an early to mid game "skirmish war" option available, where you aren't fully at war with another power, that is, not trying to capture cities, or pillage, but you battle their troops/holy units in neutral territory, yet still trade with them. Would carry a small to modest warmonger penalty, and a wide range of response to the warring civ to either begrudgingly accept things and keep the mutual benefits of trade, or cut off all ties and declare full war. Wreslting with another civ over expansion and trade should not incur the same warmonger status and capturing all of their cities. This could open up lots of interesting game play for middle game expansion, and control of trade, especially on the seas. You might capture a settler, but minimize the diplomatic penalty with the civ by marching it back to their borders and returning it.
There could be Casus Belli for : - anti-terrorism (confirmed spy activities for high end missions?) - preemptive war (confirmed militaristic move against you, prepared by the AI?) - cold war (can attack military units, or ennemy allied City-States with half wormongering penalty but not ennemy's cities, if targeted Civ has a different last tier government type?) I can't wait to try the system, I always do "justified" wars in CivV, never go for Domination xD
That's great, the way status quo wars don't have any bad boy score increase. I think status que should be protected to prevent one civ from blobbing and wining by the medieval age.
I do not mean to get way too political, but maybe in the later eras they could have "War against Tyranny" which would allow you to conquer cities with insufficient amenities (ie a suffering populace) with more and more reduced penalties for each unhappy citizen. The counterbalance would be that if you fail to increase the city's amenities within a certain time frame you'd lose your reduced penalty for taking the city and instead receive the full warmonger penalty. As I said, I don't mean for this to devolve into political shit flinging but that is a common justification for war in the modern era and would make for an interesting mechanic in my opinion as it would be a sort of risk/reward system. Taking very unhappy cities would run the risk of tanking your empire at large but have the reward of not giving you nearly as much of a warmonger score, and while you'd like to build up a captured city's defenses in case of a counter attack you also have to devote time to infrastructure very quickly or lose your casus belli and have the world consider you a warmonger.
strange thing with this though, is that the civ you targeted to "save it's people from tyranny" would be able to declare war on you anytime afterward (after you fixed the amenities issue for instance) with a liberation cause for no warmongering penalty
Matt B That is a drawback, though that problem also arises with the religious, formal, and surprise wars that already exist in game so it's not a disadvantage unique to my suggestion.
My only real issue with what has been announced so far is that I feel that certain Cassus Belli-esp. Holy War-are coming too late in the game. I would say that Holy War and Liberation War should come as far back as the Middle Ages. Maybe have 2 in the Middle Ages, 2 in the Rennaisance and 1 each in the Industrial and Modern Eras.
Agree! The world had see many Liberation War beyond that time, and Holy War as well. Maybe they dont have to give you warmonger penalties in the ancient era, but instead they give you a bonus is you managed to do that back then. Somehow I see this as a bait for more, diplomatic-centered expansion pack when they bring back the Diplomatic Victory later on, where they can properly place things that already been laid out in the initial game
Cool! This really speaks to me because I like my games to have a sort of narrative. I like seeing mechanics that tie narrative with gameplay. As for modern casus belli: - Joining a military ally in an offensive war (joining an ally in a defensive war kind of goes without saying). Your ally might get the bigger warmonger penalty from non-allies, but you might have treaty obligations that work as a good excuse in everybody else's eyes. - A reaction to espionage (depending on the severity) - Ideological wars (this tends to happen naturally in the Civ series) - I seem to recall that there's no UN in vanilla Civ 6, but a UN sanctioned "intervention" against warmongers or "rogue nations" - Pre-emptive strikes - if you have reason to believe that another civ is plotting against you, you should be able to strike at them. This one's a bit tricky, though. We know that, like in Civ 5, the player can get a steady feed of gossip about the intentions of rival players, however, the AI can't read your mind, so whatever rules are in place for launching a justified pre-emptive strike will have to be different when the AI is pre-emptively strking the player.
This is great! But I really hope they take it further, be it in a patch or future DLC. I'd love to see more 'non-lethal' wars which don't involve city capturing. Such as wars that are simply hostile relations but don't involve city taking - these sort of wars could be to raid, pillage, disrupt settling and trade but that's it. This would be ideal for both Vikings and colonial-age type wars. On top of that what about claimed non-capital continents? The idea that "I settled this new continent first!" should have a casus belii for imperialism against any city's settled on that new continent after you (that aren't originally from that continent). Which would represent the great-powers bickering much like they did throughout pretty much all of the colonial era. There's just so much potential with casus belii's and I would love to see more with them!
I think it seems likely the last Casus Belli would be "weapons of mass destruction" and allows you to completely destroy civs that own weapons such as Nuclear Bombs, Missiles and Giant Death Robots. It's something that, like the other Casus Belli, is something that is faithful to real life and it would help eliminate powerful opponents.
Yeah, I'm thinking that too. Especially since the first 4 casus belli come in around the 2nd set of governments on the civics tree and the next set of governments has the 'Nuclear Program' civic just above them haha.
Number 7 has applied many times to me. I once had a large empire that spanned across half my continent and earlier to allow me to explore I was forced to agree to an open boarder treaty with, you guessed it, Gandhi. My weakness was that there was one tile leading to 4 of my 6 cities that was on unclaimed land, but it was between land owned by my capital and my second most productive city, he put down a city just close enough so that that road fell into his boarders. I immediately took that city and took 2 others that were a little close for comfort as reparations.
*sigh, I had a game in civ 5 where I was playing as England, and Germany, Austria and I all had declaration of friendships with each other, and I had defensive pacts with both of them, however when Austria attacked Germany, I was pulled in on the side of the Germans, due to it being a defensive war, however I was then denounced by everyone, cause I declared war on a friend, even though I didn't have a choice.
There should also be an "ultimatum", like someone declares war on someone and you can say that "make peace in X turns, or face war". And economical aid during war. Like when someone asks you to join a war on their side, you can say something like "my military is kind of busy/weak right now, but I can provide you with X amount of Y,Z,Q resources per turn until the war is over".
This sounds like a good improvement. Especially the ability to basically undo another civ's warmongering without being seen as a warmonger yourself. You could already basically do the liberation and protection war in V by just conquering captured cities and then liberating them instead of taking them four yourself. Not sure how good the taking back of your own cities worked though. Hope they also change AI behavior based on their own actions. Like someone should not think that your warmongering is a threat to the world if they are doing the same. And if they ask me to join them in a war against Washington, they shouldn't denounce me if I said yes despite Washington and me having a friendship agreement.
I don't necessarily think that warmongers don't denounce other warmongers. Some people would for example argue that both the USA and the Soviet Union were warmongering in the Cold War, but they still denounced each other for it. Remember, you are just defending your country, while the others are ruthless invaders ;)
Come to think of it now, I believe there already is such a system that the effect of denunciations depends on other civs' relationship with the denouncing one. I remember seeing something like "You were denounced by a civilization they like more than you" in the relationship modifiers which totally makes sense. That leaves the "I ask you to join my war then denounce you for doing it" issue.
I was a long time fan of the series (played the first 3) and then stopped as Civ got eclipsed by Europa Universalis series in sophistication (IMO) yet while Civ VI still is at its heart a Civ game it is taking strides to close the gap and give a more nuanced experience. It looks like more and more likely I will pick up Civ VI this go round. I like what I am seeing.
I'm really happy to see that Civ VI is taking inspiration from the good ideas in other grand strategy/4X games like Europa Universalis and Endless Legend now
THAT'S why I LOVE the internet and RUclips. We would never see someone from 2k saying all the truths you've said in this video and you did it like a professional.
About the "Reconquest war": the text says "No warmonger penalties apply." and does not say that it is limited to taking back those lost cities. So I would suspect that you can take cities not originally belonging to you as well, with no warmonger points. I say this because in the "Liberation war" text it specifically said that the ignored warmonger penalty was limited to those cities. So either the game is inconsistent, or you are wrong.
The text of things are still subject to change, such as religious victory previously mentioning minor civs and now no longer does. Also, the text for casus belli on the diplomacy screen is different from the civics tree, so it could elaborate further in the final version. It's been stated that warmonger penalties are applied when declaring war and also when capturing cities. Reconquest allowing the total conquest of another Civ might be true and then I could be wrong, but it would also mean that the word 'reconquest' is wrong.
This made me want to buy, I always hated in Civ how the AI unjustly declares war on you for no particular reason. I hoped it would be like the total war series in which the more you go to war the more other civs won't like you...and that appears to be the idea here
If we are using EU4 as guide then the last one would be a "Enforcing Claims" Casus Belli. Basically via spies, diplomats, or random event you get a "Claim" on a enemy city. If you declare war before the claim expires then you can take that specific city with minimal to no warmongering penalty.
They should add "Proxy War" in it. You don't directly go to war, but you fund rebels and mercenaries in enemy territory, would be useful for gold-heavy civilizations that don't like direct confrontations.
There should be an occupation option for the liberation and protectorate casus belli where you can station troops in enemy cities to prevent them from retaliating, afterwards the city returns to the enemy civ. This allows civs to secure roads and strategic positions. This is most useful in situations where the enemy civ is between you and your ally and you have to trek your entire army deep into enemy territory. (So you can see why not being able to take cities would be rather problematic)
Yeah, Civ has turned its diplomacy into EU4 quite a bit, one could think the Civ team was influenced by it. I think it's a good thing, any other opinion?
Casus Belli looks like an improvement, but I think some of those measurements on the penalties will need to be tweaked a bit for balancing after the game is released. Also, I hope the AI doesn't flat out cheat this time like it did in civ5. In civ5, if you play on immortal or diety, the AI just magically spawns units and WONDERS out of nowhere, lol. Civ6 so far looks like it's making steps in the right directions with these improvements.
AI have cheated in all hard difficulties in all Civilization games. It's because they can't improve the computer's ability to think, so they just give them brute force. I think that in Civilization VI it is a bit better but it is hard to make a really good AI with the same abilities as a human in such a complex game. Professional players have been able to beat Immortal and Deity AI difficulty so therefore it's almost like they made the AI better, just that they give the AI free things instead of making them more efficient to make those thing manually. It's like if you told a city to only work on a 2 hammer tile instead of 4 hammers but then you get a free duplicate unit every time you finish one. They get the same amount of stuff in the end as they would if they were just good at the game. They also get free stuff at the start to avoid cheaty tactics of killing them before they get anywhere.
I love your videos. You are the one you tuber I've found who actually reports news about the game. Everyone else just repeats obvious details that everyone already knows, you take the time to research and present info, so thank you. To answer your question at the end of the video, I love the new Casus Belli system. I have always ALWAYS wanted a more robust diplomacy system. This is very interesting for the war side of things. Could you please do a video about peacetime diplomacy?
Thanks! I do try my best to not just gather facts and information but to also conclude knowledge when I talk about these things. Part of me being an ex-teacher I suppose haha! And a video on peacetime diplomacy? I might but I'll need enough to talk about before it'll be worth a video. Will need to see more of the game first.
That is freaking awesome! I would imagine that some of the war monger penalties have an impact on how your society reacts to you being at war (if it doesn't - it should). If people feel 'justified' that the war is just they are more likely to permit their nation to remain at war for longer periods of time before unrest sets in.
From Wikipedia: "Modern international law recognizes only three lawful justifications for waging war: self-defense, defense of an ally required by the terms of a treaty, and approval by the United Nations". UN role in this game? A vote?
The reasons to go to war reduces war weariness and warmongering penalties. That's what the reasons are for. It's going to war for no reason which gives you max penalties.
The point of a CB is that its something that the other nations would see as an acceptable justification for war. Why would the other nations think that the Iroquois are justified in war if they want to replace their lost population?
Really looking forward to the casus belli system, how support units and later units can stack and also to see how combat works out with the movement changes.
Another thing is that you get less warmongering when your opponent declared war on you, so taunting an AI to attack you might be a good way to conquer cities with a reduced warmongering and you won't be hated by everyone just for defending yourself.
Well what they missed from EU 4 and the other games based on the Clauseqitz engine is that even, if you are only going for a liberation or similar it might be nesseary to wage war in the rest of the enemies empire in order to force them to accept the peace. The way it is introduced now I can liberate the citystate I'm bound to protect but I can't march on and destroy the enemies war machine so that they are actually weakened enough to accept this outcome. What Civ 6 would need for a real casus belli system would be a peace conference system. Where you can decide to stick to your casus belli and thus release occupied territory or not (and then get branded as warmonger). For the remaining casus belli likley one with the world wars in mind. So a liberation war where you not only go for liberation but also for stopping that warmonger for good. Force him to accept a new goverment/idology, become a vassal or to join you alliance. The condition is likley that the one you go against has to have pilled up a big warmonger score already and is threatening a friend (it likley does not have to be an ally before you intervene but likley someone of the same ideology). For modern times then maybe ideologist wars (maybe even proxy wars).
I like this notion. I'd add in also the possibility to allow a new state to arise from conquered territory. eg. if I engaged in a war to liberate an ally and ended up conquering several other enemy cities in order to force their surrender, it would be good if those conquered cities could request independence. So our options would be to seize them for yourself, make them a vassal, grant them independence or return them to their original owner. Each of those options would greatly affect your warmongering status. Also, this should be altered by those who are allied with your enemies or who have opposing ideologies. eg. Most civs might look well on you for granting cities independence, but allies of the civ you took them from, or civs with a dictatorial stance, would look negatively on your actions.
Adding others into the negotiations would likley be to complicated at least before release. But what should be quite easy to add is an option when you conquer a city. Like in Civ5 where you can raze, puppet or take direct controll. It should be reasonably easy to add occupy. In the negotiations those occupied cities are then your bargain chip for them to accept your demand like the liberation but there might also be other legitime demands you can get without getting penalty. Like how long the forced peace will be, Reperations. Forced open border/trade and so on. Should you refuse to give the occupied cities back then you'll get the full warmonger penalty as if you had started the war with a suprise attack (maybe even an added liar malus with some). Still real wargoals and peace conferences would be better. Currently it looks a bit to much like Civ 5 where the first from an alliance to negotiate can take all and leave his partners with nothing.
Well, it's not perfect that counts for every possible reason and combination, but it's a shit ton better what there used to be. AKA "No matter what you do, you are considered warmonger, even if all you ever did was defensive wars"
It's the case for the last three games that those ideologies were involved and is a major geopolitical event in history. Of course it will include them. and if it includes ideological war, it will definitely include the ideologies that ideological wars defined in the 20th century. how is this even a question?
Also socialism took two countries from technologically backwards, backwater nations with huge illiteracy problems to global superpowers- one of which literally invented space travel.
***** "frequent food shortages" The last famine in the entire region's history happened under the USSR. They didn't have frequent food shortages that were not related to a World War lol "human rights violations" The US has more human rights violations than the USSR ever had. "People had to steal goods from their workplaces to make ends meet" That's anecdotal nonsense. "but it wasn't an economic powerhouse until (surprise, surprise)" Sorry I can't hear you over the 11% per year under Mao "it embraced a free market economy." That never happened lol 85% of investment is controlled directly by the Chinese government and the major industries are led by members of the CPC. So... you're (surprise surprise) full of shit.
Awesome Video! I'm really glad this was added, since it always bugged me when AIs denounced me for helping them in a war. Only thing that bugged me was how you pronounced Renaissance as RenAissance :P
This actually does seem quite interesting and actually works well to address some of the main issues I had with Civ 5 (providing the AI uses it properly). The other thing I would like to see added, or at least for them to make the AI take in to consideration when both you and an AI player have a high warmonger penalty, that player treats you differently somehow. Not quite sure how I would like it to be different, its just that I always felt it was rather hypocritical an AI regrades you as "an unstable threat to the world" then they have attacked and taken just as many (if not more) cities as you have.
I want a good 'Rebels' system If there is a law/civic thing that has been around long enough that you change, the game spawns a rebel player that is not spawn able any other way. At least two cities convert to this new player. You're also automatically in a 'civil war' with them, and in the peace negations, they'll ask for you to recognize their independence. Capturing their cities has no warmonger penalty, and destroying them only effects their allies. However, the unhappiness is tremendous in those cities for a very long turn counter
Hopefully the AI is more intelligent in war as well, rather than just using "AI H4X" as difficulty increases. It's not uncommon in the ancient or classical era for a civ with an army 10 times larger than mine to try taking one of my cities before losing to me due to massive AI incompetence. War is FAR too easy in V.
It's unclear if the AI will be more intelligent but what we can be sure of is they will be more rational. At least we'll know why they're making the decisions they do with the whole agenda and casus belli systems, and being able to find out about them through the gossip and spy systems.
The ai cant handle one unit per tile. It far easier to code functional combat ai based of doomstacks. civ6 is a hybrid, so its easier to make the AI good at warfare than in civ5, but harder than in earlier civs.
My guesses for the last casus belli would be 'Imperialism', 'Nationalism', and some sort of 'UN-related coalition' one, based on how -inspired- copied from EUIV the new system is. Having said that, glad they're following a system that works really well.
I could see a war to stop nukes as being an option... especially since nukes are far more deadly in this version and can wipe out cities and their districts for 20 turns without anyone being able to do anything about it for 20 turns of radiation.. a way around this is to declare a war to stop nukes where the war can continue until all nuke facilities are destroyed or the nation being attacked destroys them itself. especially since there wont be any defence against nukes this time at all so the only way to stop them is to forcibly remove them.
I have played Civ since Civ III. After thoroughly enjoying Civ V and the DLC I tried Europa IV and I have to say that having a Casus Belli system added an amazing, and more realistic, element to the game. I am so excited for it to be in Civilization!
This system sounds pretty incredible, even if it's a page right out of Europa. In Europa, there were late-game casus belli like imperialism that allowed you to fairly freely conquer things in, well, the name of empire. I can't see that making a direct translation to Civ V but it's conceivable that could be re-envisioned for Civ V's standards.
Just a random idea I just had, something to make the diplomacy/spy functions more fun, you could send a spy into a nation, and for example the spy could do a false report of the nation having 'weapons of mass destruction'' which then allows allies to declare war, (a bit like the second gulf war), But if this is too unpopular the spy could do other things like this, like create false gossip (i.e say a leader is having an affair, or is an alien, or any story like that, to declare war!!!!!
The mentioned "disarmament war" sounds the most promising to me, in that anyone who builds too many or has used nukes in a more controversial casus belli automatically brands themselves as a global threat.
Yeah, seeing the nuclear civic just over the final 3 governments on the civics tree tells me that nuclear power will affect the diplomatic landscape a bit at least.
I hope they have an economic or trade-based Casus Belli implemented in the game. Not sure how they would go about doing it, but it would be neat to declare war on someone in order to strengthen your trade.
They need to allow Limited war and air war. Airwar: The no fly zone in Iraq after the first gulf war, air strikes only as America did in Libya. Limited war: You have a limited amount of units allowed in opponents territory, some kind of restriction to capturing cities. Proxy war would be cool to. You really could wrap Airwar/Limited war/Proxy war all in to one type. Point being the method of supper powers indirectly fighting each other.
I did mention EU in this video, so you're not the first to dare to say Paradox haha. Though I'm not too familiar with EU, is there anything else that Civ could've taken from Paradox? So far I've only heard people say the casus belli is taken from EU and that's it, despite the number of people saying "Civ 6 is copying EU!".
GamerZakh Hope they incorporate some of the more intricate diplomacy features in EU4 as well. Definitely do check out Paradox titles if your into strategy. Crusader Kings 2 and Hearts of Iron 4 far are superb! And you definitely did mention EU4 in the video, couldn't contain my comment until I finished the video lol
actually the devs are doing a multiplayer stream/office tournament every tuesday atm, so if you want to see how deep it is and what hte gameplay is like by comparison then i would suggest looking it up
That does seem like a feature take from Europa Universalis. Indeed a good system that worked out pretty well on Civ. At least now you can give justified reasons to attack/defend.
Personally, I want to see how a World War could possibly go down with this Casus Belli system in place, and what sort of effects a massive, all out war would have on the game. Also, when the World Congress gets added in some time down the line, I hope that there is some means of, say, forming treaties to end multi-faceted conflicts or settle disagreements, or perform joint projects for Team victories and such.
Ok this fucks me up because I usually go for a domination victory, but it's still amazing. I love the new system and can't wait to accumulate a heck ton of warmonger points and have my allies turn on me and make me eat dirt.
From the sounds of it, it shouldn't hurt you any more than the current system - you're already using a warmonger style of play, so you already get the standard penalties. What it does is make that less the default: Even in a fairly stringent cultural or science or something focused playthrough, I'll usually end up with a Warmonger status, just from defending myself. This should provide a path to avoid that, making non-domination victories more appealing - hopefully making them even with a domination. (Which is heavily the 'default victory type' in most versions of Civ.)
Since you mentioned EU, I think I remember a few more Casus Bellis there. You have the one related to trade, so whenever one nation embargoes you, you can declare war on them as long as you do not embargo them back. Though I don't think this will apply in Civ since embargoing works differently here. Then another would be the diplomatic insult. Basically you fight somebody just because they mocked you. It's a shallow Casus Belli, yet it's enough to justify wars there. But then again, we already have the surprise war and formal war here so no need for diplomatic insults.
These bonuses seem to be based on historical events, but I'd have to say it's more of the ends justifying the means or the military power being politically untouchable than neighbouring countries actually being less upset due to these reasonings.
The one thing I still hate is that if someone else declares war on you (you are not the aggressor) and you start demolishing what ever civilization declared war on you, everyone thinks I’m a war monger when I’m simply defending myself Rn I’m at about -128 with every civilization for being a war monger even though it was Greece that declared war on me
It's generally because someone declaring war on you doesn't give you the right to annihilate their civilization. If the US conquered all of Germany and claimed all of Germany for the US (or killed the entire population) after defeating Hitler, that would be an act of warmongering. Self defence only goes so far, after that you become the aggressor. Someone slapping you doesn't mean you can shoot them 10 times in the head, that's not self defence.
Maybe a Casus Belli geared against empires, making it even more challenging (and interesting) to get a domination victory. If you own either too many captured cities or have founded too many cities and developed a signficantly larger empire and army, other civs would feel inclined to try and put you in check by force. This goes with basically any empire in history who have had similar downfalls: They bit off more than they could chew. Japanese Empire, Roman Empire, Axis power, etc.
I get what you mean, but that is basically covered by the Liberation wars, you could argue that ww2 was basically a liberation war (or a survival one) where the Allies liberated countries invaded by the Axis powers.
Scott Fordham That system would be easily exploited though by buying out nations to vote against another. I guess it is similar to liberation, but in ww2 it was a massive army against significantly lesser ones. WW2 didn't necessarily end in liberation as Germany did lose a lot of territory. I suppose WW2 was a bad example. I meant a large empire with a large military, regardless if whether or not both the army and land was founded or taken, would be sought out against by other civs. Most of the empires in history were brought down because other civs felt they were too big and it needed to be taken down lest there was a "monopoly" so to speak in power. Civ 6 allows players to build massive empires since happiness is localized, and most players chose to go the Domination route as it is quicker and easier. Just saying there should be a mechanic or belli that gives domination oriented players a tougher time. They risk the possibility of being seen as a global threat. How do multiple civs deal with massive empires? Multi-front, outnumbered forces to spread out a powerful enemy. Right now, civ 5 does have warmongering penalties, but if one nation owns 3 or 4 capitals, that should unite several nations into an alliance, whether it is formal or not, to stop the power (from winning). You receive a bonus for participating, until a certain point where you are being too greedy with your spoils.
im talking about if one civ is a warmonger and has like 2 or more civ caps the other civs can form a coalition to fight the warmonger civ and thus liberating the defeated civs on the way could be a way for diplo civs to work against a domination victory, obv no warmonger penalty for the coalition. Also no buying votes you simply ask civ's to join.
Griping about Diplomacy was just part of the larger complaint about the game AI. See, when a unit bugs out, it's just annoying. But when an entire nation bugs out, it becomes broken.
Can anyone confirm this: In Civ5, when you fight against an enemy civ, when you capture one of his city state allies, you have no choice but to puppet or annex it. Does Civ6 have an option in which you have choice to kick that city state out of the war? Meaning it will remain neutral at least for a certain amount of turns? It always sucked being surrounded by an enemies' city state allies knowing you can't or perhaps even don't want to capture them, leaving you with no option but to allow them to kill off your troops or tiles.
Some of the Casus Belli are bugged like the spy capture I've caught/killed multiple spies and the option to go to war only comes up as "promise not to spy on me" as a discuss option. Also the liberation Casas Belli is bugged where if you liberate a citystate you still receive penalties for capturing the city even if you liberate it. but you know still early in the game, there is time to fix it.....
But on civ 5 you could reverse your warmongering penalties if you liberated a city for someone else anyway. What I've always needed is the right to take the city of a civ, during a war they declared, that attempted to take one of mine. It's fair, and it's measured. They're like "oh you're a warmonger." Up yours! That civ tried to march on my capital, they're getting what they deserve. Sure they failed, but they need to be taught a lesson and gimped for a little bit so they don't just do it again
I wonder what they'll do to discourage declaring war on everyone you meet in the ancient era (when there's no penalty) and simply never accepting peace. Maybe you gradually gain warmonger points if you stay at war with the same person for too long?
I think you misread the reconquest war CB. The tool tip says "no warmonger penalties apply". It doesn't say "for liberating your cities" (like it says with the liberation and protectorate war). I think you can use it to wipe out another civ completely without a warmonger penalty.
It could be but I'm playing it safe for now. The tooltip on the diplomacy screen seems to have more info and specifies the city capture limit in more detail, but we haven't seen that yet. If the reconquest war allowed you to conquer cities that weren't yours, that's not much of a reconquest haha. That's more like a retaliation war, which is a bit more vengeful and I'd say that should incur some warmonger penalties but not the full amount.
I guess others could be a proxy war where neither side if agreed can move into the borders of the enemy, or maybe a non-nuclear war which also requires both sides to agree not to use nuclear weapons with a massive penalty for breaking it
So you all think the casus belli will fix those problems with the AI? Also, any guesses on the remaining 1 or 2 not yet revealed? I think my guesses are reasonable but probably wrong. If you want to support the channel, buy games using this *GOG* referral link: af.gog.com/?as=1715648857 They have lots of sales... Thanks!
The thing about domination victory, in Civ 5, you'd get denounced and hated even if you were justified in your wars, so nothing changes for domination haha. Also, people have been asking for casus belli for years now. When researching, I saw threads from 2008 saying casus belli might be a good idea for Civ. Link for source: forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=278579
I strongly suspect that if any Civ actually uses (not just owns) a nuclear weapon then all other civs will gain casus belli against them.
See !that's why I always come to this channel for Civilization VI news.I always wondering about this new complexities in declaration of war (warmonger penalties) ..never got a proper explanation though.
Thanks again zakh! ..as always best narration in you tube for me ..
"war..war never changes..except for civ ..it does a li'll bit.. :D "..
keep up the good work!
I wonder what happens if you join an ally in a war. Is your friend casus belli gonna be applied to you? Like "hey, join me in this war to liberate city_state_name"
I'm pretty sure the AI would still be pretty idiotic at diplomacy. In addition to warmongering points there should be at least some basic self-preservation mechanic. Instead it was more like "Warmonger! I denounce you! My spearmen will tear down your demonic nuclear rockets for the greater good" and then estimated time of existence of three turns. Besides, your allies who happened to be your "partners in crime" and benefited widely from spoils tended to attack you eventually even if they were vastly weaker.
Oh, and I only got "fear" reaction from the AI once. I was ahead of it few eras, and fear only lasted 10 turns or so. Then the AI proceeded to denounce and threaten.
If you're weaker than the AI, its even more fun: it never, never refuses to attack you, even if it is some sort of "peace-centered civ". In Civ5 it always failed to calculate opponent's strength too.
Tl;dr: no, it will not fix problem with the AI, 'cause for decent diplomacy game you'd need an actual AI.
No casus belli is the best casus belli!
*pressing the button*
*-2 stability*
Damn.
Dude, I can a fabricate claims on entire kingdoms with my eyes shut and my hands behind my back.
Sure makes me think of EU4 all right.
As jake always says:
NO CB is Best CB.
Who cares about stability when you have prussian space marines.
Engineer Beast People who don't want a 100K army of Prussian space marines?
they should have one casus belli for settling too close to your cities
Or at least for breaking a promise not to settle too close.
That and having the ability to ask the AI to move it's troops away from your borders and if they don't it's a just war. have it kind of like the Formal war requiring a denunciation, you ask AI to move it's units from your borders, if within 10 (or 5, but feel 10 is better) turns, they don't reduce the units around your borders by half you are justified in attacking them if done withing 3-5 turns.
Yeah the AI does that alot and is like "what are you gonna do about it?"
Im gonna raze that city lol
Wish you could decided not to have a specific civ in your game it gets really annoying to deal with Victoria just showing up and being like hey er whads going on in here and settle in territory that you where gonna expand into then they get mad at you for settling too close moral of the story I hate playing with England
There's territorial war already which is about invading cities too close to you.
02:44 holy shit this sword animation is so badass.
For real
I love this change, it will help structure multiplayer with friends, not that warmongering penalities apply but having an ingame justification helps the immersion. As for actual multiplayer this causus belli system seems irrelevant unless there's more significant bonuses for having a just war (reduced warmongering is hardly relevant to a competetive free for all match).
That's why I'm wondering if the warmongering penalty will apply to anything else. If it had a sway on city-states or some effect later on when the World Congress comes into play it would have consequence in multiplayer. No details on that yet though.
It would be neat if warmongering would also influence the unrest among your population for example. So if you have an justified casus belli / no warmongering points are in play your population will not give unhappiness or even give a higher happiness temporarily, while plain warmongering without reason (of course higher penalty for a surprise war compared to the formal war) gives higher unrest/unhappiness unless your state is developed as an warmongering state (which gives lower trust levels maybe then by the AI?).
I remember seeing 'War Fatigue' was a variable that drains cities' amenities, so maybe having a casus belli helps stave off war fatigue.
+GamerZakh it could be a happiness effect because a liberation or holy war could rally a population as opposed to a surprise war where the people won't be as keen this decreasing happiness ( but only after the renaissance.
Sir Baldrick
I'm curious to find out how happiness will work in Civ 6 not seen any info on it (plus I saw something about 'housing' not sure if anyone else caught wind of it).
The casus belli are excellent in that they let you deal with limited military conflict while still leaving you in control of your diplomatic status, which is exactly what you need for players to have a meaningful diplomatic strategy.
There needs to be an early to mid game "skirmish war" option available, where you aren't fully at war with another power, that is, not trying to capture cities, or pillage, but you battle their troops/holy units in neutral territory, yet still trade with them. Would carry a small to modest warmonger penalty, and a wide range of response to the warring civ to either begrudgingly accept things and keep the mutual benefits of trade, or cut off all ties and declare full war.
Wreslting with another civ over expansion and trade should not incur the same warmonger status and capturing all of their cities.
This could open up lots of interesting game play for middle game expansion, and control of trade, especially on the seas. You might capture a settler, but minimize the diplomatic penalty with the civ by marching it back to their borders and returning it.
I like it.
So like the Cold wars from Endless legend
There could be Casus Belli for :
- anti-terrorism (confirmed spy activities for high end missions?)
- preemptive war (confirmed militaristic move against you, prepared by the AI?)
- cold war (can attack military units, or ennemy allied City-States with half wormongering penalty but not ennemy's cities, if targeted Civ has a different last tier government type?)
I can't wait to try the system, I always do "justified" wars in CivV, never go for Domination xD
That's great, the way status quo wars don't have any bad boy score increase.
I think status que should be protected to prevent one civ from blobbing and wining by the medieval age.
Comet Sighted!
+2 unhappiness in all cities
Love EUIV, and very happy to see its influence on Civ6 :)
*Your Whole Empire Collapses*
I do not mean to get way too political, but maybe in the later eras they could have "War against Tyranny" which would allow you to conquer cities with insufficient amenities (ie a suffering populace) with more and more reduced penalties for each unhappy citizen. The counterbalance would be that if you fail to increase the city's amenities within a certain time frame you'd lose your reduced penalty for taking the city and instead receive the full warmonger penalty. As I said, I don't mean for this to devolve into political shit flinging but that is a common justification for war in the modern era and would make for an interesting mechanic in my opinion as it would be a sort of risk/reward system. Taking very unhappy cities would run the risk of tanking your empire at large but have the reward of not giving you nearly as much of a warmonger score, and while you'd like to build up a captured city's defenses in case of a counter attack you also have to devote time to infrastructure very quickly or lose your casus belli and have the world consider you a warmonger.
strange thing with this though, is that the civ you targeted to "save it's people from tyranny" would be able to declare war on you anytime afterward (after you fixed the amenities issue for instance) with a liberation cause for no warmongering penalty
Matt B That is a drawback, though that problem also arises with the religious, formal, and surprise wars that already exist in game so it's not a disadvantage unique to my suggestion.
just call it the "save people from the burden of life" casus belli it's a lot more honest
This country looks unhappy, it must be because of their oil reserves. I'll do them a favour and help those poor guys to get rid of them.
AKA the 'spreading freedom and democracy' casus belli.
Note: requires the defending belligerent to have access to oil/gas reserves.
My only real issue with what has been announced so far is that I feel that certain Cassus Belli-esp. Holy War-are coming too late in the game. I would say that Holy War and Liberation War should come as far back as the Middle Ages. Maybe have 2 in the Middle Ages, 2 in the Rennaisance and 1 each in the Industrial and Modern Eras.
Yeah you're totally right, Reconquista anyone?
Agree! The world had see many Liberation War beyond that time, and Holy War as well. Maybe they dont have to give you warmonger penalties in the ancient era, but instead they give you a bonus is you managed to do that back then.
Somehow I see this as a bait for more, diplomatic-centered expansion pack when they bring back the Diplomatic Victory later on, where they can properly place things that already been laid out in the initial game
@@Hakudohshi
Love the Reconquista
@@reidparker1848 There aint no Holy Wars ,Assholes , just bloody Butcherings .
I prayed to whatever was in heaven that a Causus Belli system would be included.
I am religious now
Whats the benefit of your follower beliefs then?
ANJROTmania Temples provide +2 Culture in cities with 5 followers and 15% faster Growth rate for my city if not at war
aww shit breh hit me up missionary style, Im citizen number 6 at Siam's city of Phitsanulok
ANJROTmania I am a worker in Hiwathas capital so I'll see what I can do.
He's already built cities on every border so it shouldn't be a problem.
Pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Casus Belli FUCKING FINALLY!
You know, Paradox games have had this for years.
But no Fucking Civilization.. The massive game that needed it the most.
Paradox is massive....
Cool!
This really speaks to me because I like my games to have a sort of narrative. I like seeing mechanics that tie narrative with gameplay.
As for modern casus belli:
- Joining a military ally in an offensive war (joining an ally in a defensive war kind of goes without saying). Your ally might get the bigger warmonger penalty from non-allies, but you might have treaty obligations that work as a good excuse in everybody else's eyes.
- A reaction to espionage (depending on the severity)
- Ideological wars (this tends to happen naturally in the Civ series)
- I seem to recall that there's no UN in vanilla Civ 6, but a UN sanctioned "intervention" against warmongers or "rogue nations"
- Pre-emptive strikes - if you have reason to believe that another civ is plotting against you, you should be able to strike at them. This one's a bit tricky, though. We know that, like in Civ 5, the player can get a steady feed of gossip about the intentions of rival players, however, the AI can't read your mind, so whatever rules are in place for launching a justified pre-emptive strike will have to be different when the AI is pre-emptively strking the player.
I'd like to see some future Civ have some unique casus belli as part of their unique ability, that'd be pretty cool
This is great! But I really hope they take it further, be it in a patch or future DLC.
I'd love to see more 'non-lethal' wars which don't involve city capturing. Such as wars that are simply hostile relations but don't involve city taking - these sort of wars could be to raid, pillage, disrupt settling and trade but that's it. This would be ideal for both Vikings and colonial-age type wars.
On top of that what about claimed non-capital continents? The idea that "I settled this new continent first!" should have a casus belii for imperialism against any city's settled on that new continent after you (that aren't originally from that continent). Which would represent the great-powers bickering much like they did throughout pretty much all of the colonial era.
There's just so much potential with casus belii's and I would love to see more with them!
Too bad they don't give a shit about colonization or independence based revolutions anymore
I think it seems likely the last Casus Belli would be "weapons of mass destruction" and allows you to completely destroy civs that own weapons such as Nuclear Bombs, Missiles and Giant Death Robots. It's something that, like the other Casus Belli, is something that is faithful to real life and it would help eliminate powerful opponents.
Yeah, I'm thinking that too. Especially since the first 4 casus belli come in around the 2nd set of governments on the civics tree and the next set of governments has the 'Nuclear Program' civic just above them haha.
What would be even more interesting is if that mechanic later brings you up as a liar, war monger and criminal. You know, like real life.
Number 7 has applied many times to me. I once had a large empire that spanned across half my continent and earlier to allow me to explore I was forced to agree to an open boarder treaty with, you guessed it, Gandhi. My weakness was that there was one tile leading to 4 of my 6 cities that was on unclaimed land, but it was between land owned by my capital and my second most productive city, he put down a city just close enough so that that road fell into his boarders. I immediately took that city and took 2 others that were a little close for comfort as reparations.
This gives you a massive incentive for early aggression. Scythia and Sumerian will be great for this, can't wait!
EU4? Is that You?
Yeah, I started humming the EU4 theme without even realizing it after the video ended.
I will Ride Forth Victoriously in Civ 6 if ya know what I mean.
VLS Gaming
that song is for badass conquering in eu4
*sigh, I had a game in civ 5 where I was playing as England, and Germany, Austria and I all had declaration of friendships with each other, and I had defensive pacts with both of them, however when Austria attacked Germany, I was pulled in on the side of the Germans, due to it being a defensive war, however I was then denounced by everyone, cause I declared war on a friend, even though I didn't have a choice.
Which Is why I don't make defensive pacts unless I know htey are peaceful with my other friends.
stephan balancier They were though! But then Austria back stabbed Germany!
Damn traitors hahaha well yeah that ducks indeed. Kind of weird how that turned out hahaha. Sure Austria and Germany got huge negatives too though.
stephan balancier Well yeah everyone hated Austria after that point, but still why did I have to get dragged in! Oh well...
hahaha now you know how some nations felt in world War one. just a giant snowball effect hahaha
Thanks for the Civ VI videos!
You're welcome!
Navid!
***** Are you ready for the 7th of October?
Heck yeah! I can't wait :D
There should also be an "ultimatum", like someone declares war on someone and you can say that "make peace in X turns, or face war". And economical aid during war. Like when someone asks you to join a war on their side, you can say something like "my military is kind of busy/weak right now, but I can provide you with X amount of Y,Z,Q resources per turn until the war is over".
This sounds like a good improvement. Especially the ability to basically undo another civ's warmongering without being seen as a warmonger yourself. You could already basically do the liberation and protection war in V by just conquering captured cities and then liberating them instead of taking them four yourself. Not sure how good the taking back of your own cities worked though.
Hope they also change AI behavior based on their own actions. Like someone should not think that your warmongering is a threat to the world if they are doing the same. And if they ask me to join them in a war against Washington, they shouldn't denounce me if I said yes despite Washington and me having a friendship agreement.
I don't necessarily think that warmongers don't denounce other warmongers. Some people would for example argue that both the USA and the Soviet Union were warmongering in the Cold War, but they still denounced each other for it.
Remember, you are just defending your country, while the others are ruthless invaders ;)
I guess that's true but other Civs should not listen to hypocritical denunciations as much I think.
Ulf Liller
That's true, too.
Come to think of it now, I believe there already is such a system that the effect of denunciations depends on other civs' relationship with the denouncing one. I remember seeing something like "You were denounced by a civilization they like more than you" in the relationship modifiers which totally makes sense.
That leaves the "I ask you to join my war then denounce you for doing it" issue.
Yeah but the Civ team apparently FORGOT to apply this to city states.
The new diplomacy system is the only thing I've actually gotten exited about in this game
I was a long time fan of the series (played the first 3) and then stopped as Civ got eclipsed by Europa Universalis series in sophistication (IMO) yet while Civ VI still is at its heart a Civ game it is taking strides to close the gap and give a more nuanced experience. It looks like more and more likely I will pick up Civ VI this go round. I like what I am seeing.
I'm really happy to see that Civ VI is taking inspiration from the good ideas in other grand strategy/4X games like Europa Universalis and Endless Legend now
THAT'S why I LOVE the internet and RUclips. We would never see someone from 2k saying all the truths you've said in this video and you did it like a professional.
Thank you! Glad you appreciate that.
About the "Reconquest war": the text says "No warmonger penalties apply." and does not say that it is limited to taking back those lost cities. So I would suspect that you can take cities not originally belonging to you as well, with no warmonger points. I say this because in the "Liberation war" text it specifically said that the ignored warmonger penalty was limited to those cities. So either the game is inconsistent, or you are wrong.
The text of things are still subject to change, such as religious victory previously mentioning minor civs and now no longer does. Also, the text for casus belli on the diplomacy screen is different from the civics tree, so it could elaborate further in the final version. It's been stated that warmonger penalties are applied when declaring war and also when capturing cities. Reconquest allowing the total conquest of another Civ might be true and then I could be wrong, but it would also mean that the word 'reconquest' is wrong.
Thanks for responding. We will see in the final version.
This made me want to buy, I always hated in Civ how the AI unjustly declares war on you for no particular reason. I hoped it would be like the total war series in which the more you go to war the more other civs won't like you...and that appears to be the idea here
This is good news. This fixes my biggest gripe about past Civ games.
If we are using EU4 as guide then the last one would be a "Enforcing Claims" Casus Belli.
Basically via spies, diplomats, or random event you get a "Claim" on a enemy city. If you declare war before the claim expires then you can take that specific city with minimal to no warmongering penalty.
They should add "Proxy War" in it. You don't directly go to war, but you fund rebels and mercenaries in enemy territory, would be useful for gold-heavy civilizations that don't like direct confrontations.
There should be an occupation option for the liberation and protectorate casus belli where you can station troops in enemy cities to prevent them from retaliating, afterwards the city returns to the enemy civ.
This allows civs to secure roads and strategic positions. This is most useful in situations where the enemy civ is between you and your ally and you have to trek your entire army deep into enemy territory. (So you can see why not being able to take cities would be rather problematic)
just started following you, watched all civ 6 vids :)
thank you very much
Glad you enjoyed them!
I literally just bought EU4 today and the title made me do a double take.
its a really good game hope you enjoy it.
Yeah, Civ has turned its diplomacy into EU4 quite a bit, one could think the Civ team was influenced by it. I think it's a good thing, any other opinion?
Casus Belli looks like an improvement, but I think some of those measurements on the penalties will need to be tweaked a bit for balancing after the game is released. Also, I hope the AI doesn't flat out cheat this time like it did in civ5. In civ5, if you play on immortal or diety, the AI just magically spawns units and WONDERS out of nowhere, lol. Civ6 so far looks like it's making steps in the right directions with these improvements.
so for not cheat. they just get hella boosts at the start
AI have cheated in all hard difficulties in all Civilization games. It's because they can't improve the computer's ability to think, so they just give them brute force. I think that in Civilization VI it is a bit better but it is hard to make a really good AI with the same abilities as a human in such a complex game. Professional players have been able to beat Immortal and Deity AI difficulty so therefore it's almost like they made the AI better, just that they give the AI free things instead of making them more efficient to make those thing manually. It's like if you told a city to only work on a 2 hammer tile instead of 4 hammers but then you get a free duplicate unit every time you finish one. They get the same amount of stuff in the end as they would if they were just good at the game. They also get free stuff at the start to avoid cheaty tactics of killing them before they get anywhere.
I love your videos. You are the one you tuber I've found who actually reports news about the game. Everyone else just repeats obvious details that everyone already knows, you take the time to research and present info, so thank you.
To answer your question at the end of the video, I love the new Casus Belli system. I have always ALWAYS wanted a more robust diplomacy system. This is very interesting for the war side of things.
Could you please do a video about peacetime diplomacy?
Thanks! I do try my best to not just gather facts and information but to also conclude knowledge when I talk about these things. Part of me being an ex-teacher I suppose haha! And a video on peacetime diplomacy? I might but I'll need enough to talk about before it'll be worth a video. Will need to see more of the game first.
Well I hope to see more from you. I have subscribed and keep checking your channel often.
Sounds great, I haven't played a CIC game for a while, but EUIV, it really sounds like they had a look at it. A good addition.
That is freaking awesome! I would imagine that some of the war monger penalties have an impact on how your society reacts to you being at war (if it doesn't - it should). If people feel 'justified' that the war is just they are more likely to permit their nation to remain at war for longer periods of time before unrest sets in.
Its a good idea. Civ 6 needs to be much more complex than civ 5. Just dont make it into a paradox game :D
From Wikipedia: "Modern international law recognizes only three lawful justifications for waging war: self-defense, defense of an ally required by the terms of a treaty, and approval by the United Nations". UN role in this game? A vote?
Maybe once world congress is brought in?
Civ 6: Going to battle causes war weariness, be careful.
Also Civ 6: Also look at all these reasons to go to war, why not try it?
The reasons to go to war reduces war weariness and warmongering penalties. That's what the reasons are for. It's going to war for no reason which gives you max penalties.
YES! This seems to be a great attribution for the Civ-game!
Might be fun to see civ specific cassus belli down the road. Like the Iroquois Confederacy could declare a mourning war to replace lost population.
The point of a CB is that its something that the other nations would see as an acceptable justification for war. Why would the other nations think that the Iroquois are justified in war if they want to replace their lost population?
Really looking forward to the casus belli system, how support units and later units can stack and also to see how combat works out with the movement changes.
Another thing is that you get less warmongering when your opponent declared war on you, so taunting an AI to attack you might be a good way to conquer cities with a reduced warmongering and you won't be hated by everyone just for defending yourself.
Well what they missed from EU 4 and the other games based on the Clauseqitz engine is that even, if you are only going for a liberation or similar it might be nesseary to wage war in the rest of the enemies empire in order to force them to accept the peace. The way it is introduced now I can liberate the citystate I'm bound to protect but I can't march on and destroy the enemies war machine so that they are actually weakened enough to accept this outcome.
What Civ 6 would need for a real casus belli system would be a peace conference system. Where you can decide to stick to your casus belli and thus release occupied territory or not (and then get branded as warmonger).
For the remaining casus belli likley one with the world wars in mind. So a liberation war
where you not only go for liberation but also for stopping that warmonger for good. Force him to accept a new goverment/idology, become a vassal or to join you alliance. The condition is likley that the one you go against has to have pilled up a big warmonger score already and is threatening a friend (it likley does not have to be an ally before you intervene but likley someone of the same ideology).
For modern times then maybe ideologist wars (maybe even proxy wars).
I like this notion. I'd add in also the possibility to allow a new state to arise from conquered territory. eg. if I engaged in a war to liberate an ally and ended up conquering several other enemy cities in order to force their surrender, it would be good if those conquered cities could request independence. So our options would be to seize them for yourself, make them a vassal, grant them independence or return them to their original owner.
Each of those options would greatly affect your warmongering status. Also, this should be altered by those who are allied with your enemies or who have opposing ideologies. eg. Most civs might look well on you for granting cities independence, but allies of the civ you took them from, or civs with a dictatorial stance, would look negatively on your actions.
Adding others into the negotiations would likley be to complicated at least before release. But what should be quite easy to add is an option when you conquer a city. Like in Civ5 where you can raze, puppet or take direct controll. It should be reasonably easy to add occupy.
In the negotiations those occupied cities are then your bargain chip for them to accept your demand like the liberation but there might also be other legitime demands you can get without getting penalty. Like how long the forced peace will be, Reperations. Forced open border/trade and so on.
Should you refuse to give the occupied cities back then you'll get the full warmonger penalty as if you had started the war with a suprise attack (maybe even an added liar malus with some).
Still real wargoals and peace conferences would be better. Currently it looks a bit to much like Civ 5 where the first from an alliance to negotiate can take all and leave his partners with nothing.
Well, it's not perfect that counts for every possible reason and combination, but it's a shit ton better what there used to be. AKA "No matter what you do, you are considered warmonger, even if all you ever did was defensive wars"
It's funny. I only learned what cases belling as a few hours before I saw this video . What a quinkidink
I like the idea of spreading ideology by war. Keep the country independent but force them to adopt a better system like socialism lol
Or, you know, capitalism and fascism (which is capitalism but whatever).
because those are the ideological options available in the game?? We are talking about the game here, lets not carried the irl into the door
It's the case for the last three games that those ideologies were involved and is a major geopolitical event in history. Of course it will include them. and if it includes ideological war, it will definitely include the ideologies that ideological wars defined in the 20th century. how is this even a question?
Also socialism took two countries from technologically backwards, backwater nations with huge illiteracy problems to global superpowers- one of which literally invented space travel.
*****
"frequent food shortages"
The last famine in the entire region's history happened under the USSR. They didn't have frequent food shortages that were not related to a World War lol
"human rights violations"
The US has more human rights violations than the USSR ever had.
"People had to steal goods from their workplaces to make ends meet"
That's anecdotal nonsense.
"but it wasn't an economic powerhouse until (surprise, surprise)"
Sorry I can't hear you over the 11% per year under Mao
"it embraced a free market economy."
That never happened lol
85% of investment is controlled directly by the Chinese government and the major industries are led by members of the CPC. So... you're (surprise surprise) full of shit.
Awesome Video! I'm really glad this was added, since it always bugged me when AIs denounced me for helping them in a war. Only thing that bugged me was how you pronounced Renaissance as RenAissance :P
Thanks! Haha that was a slip. When I was a kid I pronounced it like that, so it sometimes slips out accidentally.
This actually does seem quite interesting and actually works well to address some of the main issues I had with Civ 5 (providing the AI uses it properly). The other thing I would like to see added, or at least for them to make the AI take in to consideration when both you and an AI player have a high warmonger penalty, that player treats you differently somehow. Not quite sure how I would like it to be different, its just that I always felt it was rather hypocritical an AI regrades you as "an unstable threat to the world" then they have attacked and taken just as many (if not more) cities as you have.
I actually laughed out loud at the intro.
"War never changes. Except in civ VI, where it changes a little bit!"
I want a good 'Rebels' system
If there is a law/civic thing that has been around long enough that you change, the game spawns a rebel player that is not spawn able any other way. At least two cities convert to this new player. You're also automatically in a 'civil war' with them, and in the peace negations, they'll ask for you to recognize their independence. Capturing their cities has no warmonger penalty, and destroying them only effects their allies. However, the unhappiness is tremendous in those cities for a very long turn counter
One city would be much betters two may just get you back to your capital and nothing else
Hopefully the AI is more intelligent in war as well, rather than just using "AI H4X" as difficulty increases.
It's not uncommon in the ancient or classical era for a civ with an army 10 times larger than mine to try taking one of my cities before losing to me due to massive AI incompetence.
War is FAR too easy in V.
It's unclear if the AI will be more intelligent but what we can be sure of is they will be more rational. At least we'll know why they're making the decisions they do with the whole agenda and casus belli systems, and being able to find out about them through the gossip and spy systems.
The ai cant handle one unit per tile. It far easier to code functional combat ai based of doomstacks. civ6 is a hybrid, so its easier to make the AI good at warfare than in civ5, but harder than in earlier civs.
Nice and about time. So annoying in Civ V when other civs nonsensically unjustify my so justified war.
My guesses for the last casus belli would be 'Imperialism', 'Nationalism', and some sort of 'UN-related coalition' one, based on how -inspired- copied from EUIV the new system is. Having said that, glad they're following a system that works really well.
Finally, I can start a crusade against all non-boat mormons
Denouncing Venice is the only true religion!
I could see a war to stop nukes as being an option... especially since nukes are far more deadly in this version and can wipe out cities and their districts for 20 turns without anyone being able to do anything about it for 20 turns of radiation.. a way around this is to declare a war to stop nukes where the war can continue until all nuke facilities are destroyed or the nation being attacked destroys them itself.
especially since there wont be any defence against nukes this time at all so the only way to stop them is to forcibly remove them.
I have played Civ since Civ III. After thoroughly enjoying Civ V and the DLC I tried Europa IV and I have to say that having a Casus Belli system added an amazing, and more realistic, element to the game. I am so excited for it to be in Civilization!
I've been playing Civ3 to death, waiting for 6; I think the casus belli system is one of the best things I've heard about so far! Sounds Good! :)
This system sounds pretty incredible, even if it's a page right out of Europa. In Europa, there were late-game casus belli like imperialism that allowed you to fairly freely conquer things in, well, the name of empire. I can't see that making a direct translation to Civ V but it's conceivable that could be re-envisioned for Civ V's standards.
Just a random idea I just had, something to make the diplomacy/spy functions more fun, you could send a spy into a nation, and for example the spy could do a false report of the nation having 'weapons of mass destruction'' which then allows allies to declare war, (a bit like the second gulf war), But if this is too unpopular the spy could do other things like this, like create false gossip (i.e say a leader is having an affair, or is an alien, or any story like that, to declare war!!!!!
what i have been told is if you capture enemy cities thats when your allies become upset
I am now more hype than before, can't wait till october
My guess on what some of the late-game causus belli might end up being are regime change, resource grabs, and lebensraum.
The mentioned "disarmament war" sounds the most promising to me, in that anyone who builds too many or has used nukes in a more controversial casus belli automatically brands themselves as a global threat.
Yeah, seeing the nuclear civic just over the final 3 governments on the civics tree tells me that nuclear power will affect the diplomatic landscape a bit at least.
I hope they have an economic or trade-based Casus Belli implemented in the game. Not sure how they would go about doing it, but it would be neat to declare war on someone in order to strengthen your trade.
One hidden war option is to be 2 areas behind. Also for territory expansion.
I think the final Casus Belli will likely be an ideological crusade or as a means of avoiding ideological pressure.
when entering the modern era, their will probably be a casus beli for a resource war, for example if you want oil etc.
On the contrary this is not Casus Beli you use publicly. It can of course be your secret goal but it is never something you use as a reason.
They need to allow Limited war and air war. Airwar: The no fly zone in Iraq after the first gulf war, air strikes only as America did in Libya. Limited war: You have a limited amount of units allowed in opponents territory, some kind of restriction to capturing cities. Proxy war would be cool to. You really could wrap Airwar/Limited war/Proxy war all in to one type. Point being the method of supper powers indirectly fighting each other.
Dare I say Firaxis has been looking at Paradox? Hence the addition of CBs now etc.
I did mention EU in this video, so you're not the first to dare to say Paradox haha. Though I'm not too familiar with EU, is there anything else that Civ could've taken from Paradox? So far I've only heard people say the casus belli is taken from EU and that's it, despite the number of people saying "Civ 6 is copying EU!".
The 'Lens' feature is also an ode to EUs mapmodes system for easy macro-information. They're super useful so I'm glad theyre using it
thesherbet Ah thank you! You're the first person to mention that the lens feature is in EU.
GamerZakh
Hope they incorporate some of the more intricate diplomacy features in EU4 as well. Definitely do check out Paradox titles if your into strategy. Crusader Kings 2 and Hearts of Iron 4 far are superb! And you definitely did mention EU4 in the video, couldn't contain my comment until I finished the video lol
actually the devs are doing a multiplayer stream/office tournament every tuesday atm, so if you want to see how deep it is and what hte gameplay is like by comparison then i would suggest looking it up
That does seem like a feature take from Europa Universalis. Indeed a good system that worked out pretty well on Civ. At least now you can give justified reasons to attack/defend.
I like the new war types, thanks for the information.
You're welcome!
Im a long time EU and Civ player and I think im going to love the CB system. Im sure they will have to tweak it some but it could be amazing
Personally, I want to see how a World War could possibly go down with this Casus Belli system in place, and what sort of effects a massive, all out war would have on the game. Also, when the World Congress gets added in some time down the line, I hope that there is some means of, say, forming treaties to end multi-faceted conflicts or settle disagreements, or perform joint projects for Team victories and such.
Ok this fucks me up because I usually go for a domination victory, but it's still amazing. I love the new system and can't wait to accumulate a heck ton of warmonger points and have my allies turn on me and make me eat dirt.
From the sounds of it, it shouldn't hurt you any more than the current system - you're already using a warmonger style of play, so you already get the standard penalties. What it does is make that less the default: Even in a fairly stringent cultural or science or something focused playthrough, I'll usually end up with a Warmonger status, just from defending myself. This should provide a path to avoid that, making non-domination victories more appealing - hopefully making them even with a domination. (Which is heavily the 'default victory type' in most versions of Civ.)
Since you mentioned EU, I think I remember a few more Casus Bellis there.
You have the one related to trade, so whenever one nation embargoes you, you can declare war on them as long as you do not embargo them back. Though I don't think this will apply in Civ since embargoing works differently here.
Then another would be the diplomatic insult. Basically you fight somebody just because they mocked you. It's a shallow Casus Belli, yet it's enough to justify wars there. But then again, we already have the surprise war and formal war here so no need for diplomatic insults.
Is oil conquest a legitimate casus belli?
For the USA, of course.
With USA you have the option to claim that the country you are fighting is "jealous of our freedom." +2 happiness in every city.
War on terror casus belli
"They took our jobs" Casus Belli
These bonuses seem to be based on historical events, but I'd have to say it's more of the ends justifying the means or the military power being politically untouchable than neighbouring countries actually being less upset due to these reasonings.
Being the one to be blamed. That's how Germany feels for thousands of year since HRE.
No Germany gets rightfully blamed for being the biggest aggressor in both world wars.
It's so much better now!
If only Koei could come up with something this advanced.
The one thing I still hate is that if someone else declares war on you (you are not the aggressor) and you start demolishing what ever civilization declared war on you, everyone thinks I’m a war monger when I’m simply defending myself
Rn I’m at about -128 with every civilization for being a war monger even though it was Greece that declared war on me
It's generally because someone declaring war on you doesn't give you the right to annihilate their civilization. If the US conquered all of Germany and claimed all of Germany for the US (or killed the entire population) after defeating Hitler, that would be an act of warmongering. Self defence only goes so far, after that you become the aggressor. Someone slapping you doesn't mean you can shoot them 10 times in the head, that's not self defence.
Maybe a Casus Belli geared against empires, making it even more challenging (and interesting) to get a domination victory. If you own either too many captured cities or have founded too many cities and developed a signficantly larger empire and army, other civs would feel inclined to try and put you in check by force. This goes with basically any empire in history who have had similar downfalls: They bit off more than they could chew. Japanese Empire, Roman Empire, Axis power, etc.
I get what you mean, but that is basically covered by the Liberation wars, you could argue that ww2 was basically a liberation war (or a survival one) where the Allies liberated countries invaded by the Axis powers.
maybe the AI can put out a vote against you if you become such a warmongering power so it becomes like a 4v1
Scott Fordham That system would be easily exploited though by buying out nations to vote against another.
I guess it is similar to liberation, but in ww2 it was a massive army against significantly lesser ones. WW2 didn't necessarily end in liberation as Germany did lose a lot of territory.
I suppose WW2 was a bad example. I meant a large empire with a large military, regardless if whether or not both the army and land was founded or taken, would be sought out against by other civs. Most of the empires in history were brought down because other civs felt they were too big and it needed to be taken down lest there was a "monopoly" so to speak in power.
Civ 6 allows players to build massive empires since happiness is localized, and most players chose to go the Domination route as it is quicker and easier. Just saying there should be a mechanic or belli that gives domination oriented players a tougher time. They risk the possibility of being seen as a global threat. How do multiple civs deal with massive empires? Multi-front, outnumbered forces to spread out a powerful enemy.
Right now, civ 5 does have warmongering penalties, but if one nation owns 3 or 4 capitals, that should unite several nations into an alliance, whether it is formal or not, to stop the power (from winning). You receive a bonus for participating, until a certain point where you are being too greedy with your spoils.
im talking about if one civ is a warmonger and has like 2 or more civ caps the other civs can form a coalition to fight the warmonger civ and thus liberating the defeated civs on the way could be a way for diplo civs to work against a domination victory, obv no warmonger penalty for the coalition. Also no buying votes you simply ask civ's to join.
In my Japan game which I later won scientific victory I took over Norway using formal wars, everyone except my allies (France and Russia) hated me.
Looks like the Paradox for Civ 6 faction fired succesfully.
Griping about Diplomacy was just part of the larger complaint about the game AI. See, when a unit bugs out, it's just annoying. But when an entire nation bugs out, it becomes broken.
This is great addition. I suggested to use EU diplomacy since Civ IV
Remember that this 6 unit uranium deposit, is legit Casus Belli.
Can anyone confirm this:
In Civ5, when you fight against an enemy civ, when you capture one of his city state allies, you have no choice but to puppet or annex it. Does Civ6 have an option in which you have choice to kick that city state out of the war? Meaning it will remain neutral at least for a certain amount of turns?
It always sucked being surrounded by an enemies' city state allies knowing you can't or perhaps even don't want to capture them, leaving you with no option but to allow them to kill off your troops or tiles.
Some of the Casus Belli are bugged like the spy capture I've caught/killed multiple spies and the option to go to war only comes up as "promise not to spy on me" as a discuss option.
Also the liberation Casas Belli is bugged where if you liberate a citystate you still receive penalties for capturing the city even if you liberate it.
but you know still early in the game, there is time to fix it.....
But on civ 5 you could reverse your warmongering penalties if you liberated a city for someone else anyway. What I've always needed is the right to take the city of a civ, during a war they declared, that attempted to take one of mine. It's fair, and it's measured. They're like "oh you're a warmonger." Up yours! That civ tried to march on my capital, they're getting what they deserve. Sure they failed, but they need to be taught a lesson and gimped for a little bit so they don't just do it again
I love the changes :D Long overdue
I wonder what they'll do to discourage declaring war on everyone you meet in the ancient era (when there's no penalty) and simply never accepting peace. Maybe you gradually gain warmonger points if you stay at war with the same person for too long?
Any word on if Civ VI has defensive pacts/alliances that the AI actually uses?
I think you misread the reconquest war CB. The tool tip says "no warmonger penalties apply". It doesn't say "for liberating your cities" (like it says with the liberation and protectorate war). I think you can use it to wipe out another civ completely without a warmonger penalty.
It could be but I'm playing it safe for now. The tooltip on the diplomacy screen seems to have more info and specifies the city capture limit in more detail, but we haven't seen that yet. If the reconquest war allowed you to conquer cities that weren't yours, that's not much of a reconquest haha. That's more like a retaliation war, which is a bit more vengeful and I'd say that should incur some warmonger penalties but not the full amount.
am I the only who thinks Civ V is the best one in the series? Well at least with BNW expansion it is.
I guess others could be a proxy war where neither side if agreed can move into the borders of the enemy, or maybe a non-nuclear war which also requires both sides to agree not to use nuclear weapons with a massive penalty for breaking it