Suggestion for making war weariness and resolution better...

[Jorgen_CAB]

A few things I have noticed after many AI test runs is how wars proceed and end. Most of the time the war weariness and progress work like is should but also as often produce results that is not really warranted.

Unhappiness is tied to war wariness which means that an empire receive less income as a war drags on... in my opinion this is fine and is as it should. But, the problem is that it does not take into account if it is even possible to end a war and the willingness of the participants to do so.

Let's take a perfectly viable scenario of when it does not work so well from a simulation perspective.

The vibrant New Terran Federation have a very strong multi cultural economy and fleets. Suddenly they are invaded by the vicious and murderous bug people who destroy and enslave anything in its way. The bugs attack a few outlying colonies before the federation fleet can react. After a few years of fighting the bug fleet are thwarted and many of their ships are littered as trash around those invaded colonies. A campaign is started to liberate the planets from the bugs. But... the bugs seem to have endless amount of resources and are continuously attacking and harassing along the entire perimeter of the shared border space. The war become a war of attrition...
After some years though the huge war weariness of the federation makes the peoples happiness plummet and so does the state income. The federal government can't do anything to mitigate this as the bug people simply refuse to talk and just keep coming... they either kill or enslave every colony they invade and the people still refuse to put up a fight in a hopeless effort of peace that will only come when all of them are either dead or enslaved.

Now... in the game this actually happen, and is not uncommon. As war weariness go up so also does their ability to resist as well. And if the other side is not willing to end the war in any way (you don't have the money to pay them off) it just get worse and worse for the other side as they get into a death spiral.


So... my suggestion is that every war must have some sort of war goal and an actual attacker and defender. War weariness should still remain as is but the penalties must reflect what is going on and who is willing to talk and who is not and how the war effects the civilian population and the populations connection with the state (as regulated by government type). Colonies who changed hand in a war also should be part of any peace negotiation and overall war weariness on both sides should factor into any negotiations.

Loosing a colony to a hated enemy could as much galvanize a society to resist more rather than less. I think that governments should have a much bigger impact on this as well. A republic or Democracy for example are likely to become invigorated and stronger on defence and very quickly upset while on the offence. A military dictatorship should probably suffer much less problem when they decide to attack but also receive very little help when attacked or even suffer internal problems when a war is going badly no matter they attack or defend.

In the end this would simulate a much more nuanced and interesting facet of how the different government functions in the political plane. A dictatorship can work really well as long as it is strong and don't loose wars too badly. More free societies will favour peace and prosperity over war but they will fight tooth and nail to defend that freedom if threatened. This would make it more difficult to expand with military might the more liberal the government type is, as even a successful offensive war would cause issues if it takes too long. While more controlling societies instead face internal rivalry when the pressure mounts on the government maybe resulting in revolts or removal of the dictator etc..

This suggestion is not only about the simulation but also game mechanic wise. This mechanic will some of the time lead to unavoidable death spirals of empires in wars for which I think could be avoided to some degree. In some instances these collapses are warranted but often it is not.

[frankycl]

So... my suggestion is (...)

Very good suggestions, imho - strongly agreed.
(I think you should also put this (or link it) onto Steam - in the "Suggestions and Wishlists "-sub-forum. )

And additionally I think there needs to be something you could gain through a war - like e.g. an increase of pop-happiness when you successfully win the war (= it ends with a green war-budget for your empire) - and an additional increase when it was a real (!) unjustified war that your enemy started. )

[WiZz]

After some years though the huge war weariness of the federation makes the peoples happiness plummet and so does the state income. The federal government can't do anything to mitigate this as the bug people simply refuse to talk and just keep coming... they either kill or enslave every colony they invade and the people still refuse to put up a fight in a hopeless effort of peace that will only come when all of them are either dead or enslaved.

Now... in the game this actually happen, and is not uncommon. As war weariness go up so also does their ability to resist as well. And if the other side is not willing to end the war in any way (you don't have the money to pay them off) it just get worse and worse for the other side as they get into a death spiral.

Personally, I found this implementation pretty realistic for democratic regimes. Common people get tired from war pretty quickly. Especially if it is pretty far from their homes. They aren't interested that enemy refuses to negotiate. It's politic establishment to blame.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Personally, I found this implementation pretty realistic for democratic regimes. Common people get tired from war pretty quickly. Especially if it is pretty far from their homes. They aren't interested that enemy refuses to negotiate. It's politic establishment to blame.

Eh... no... not when their lives is at stake as in the state can't defend them anymore. People are a bit smarter than that. If you fight an existential war as these wars become it does not work.

There are few example from history of any Democratic country reacting like you say in a defensive war when the nation was invaded and free people gets enslaved or killed for no good reasons. You are talking about offensive wars, not defensive ones.

[AKicebear]

There are recent examples of offensive wars of choice by democratic countries which drag on for decades with light criticism but nothing like destablizing war weariness. And others that have deep popular skepticism nearly immediately. It ends up depending on who exactly is the aggressor, the target, the history (which matters so much) and tangible day to day costs.

I like the general idea by JB, but am not certain a Paradox style war goals system is necessary. Instead, I think there should be more (visible) nuance in the war score system and happiness system interactions. E.g.

• Bombardment of enemy population should always be net positive war score, but potentially very net positive or negative war weariness depending on species-pair, government-pair, and history of past aggression. The history past should matter a huge amount, with slow (multi-generation) decay, where 2 human democratic empires may happily bombard each other in their third or fourth war this century, having been radicalized in that direction.
• The impact of a positive or negative war score on war weariness should scale proportional to the size of your economy. This seems to be the biggest shortcoming in the system currently - a relatively low war score between two small empires isn't enough to trigger one side to surrender under any conditions, even if it equates to the entire mining sector of one side being annihilated.
• In general, the entire system of negotiation for peace when there is a significant war score needs re-balance. AI empires should be more willing to settle for peace without concessions, and peace with concessions, under clearly thresholds (e.g. >50% of maximum possible war score if I destroyed the entire enemy fleet and economy). This should vary by race/government bilateral combinations - e.g. Human democracy will need a worse negative war score and war weariness to surrender with concessions to a Dhayut hive mind, than to another Human democracy.
• To balance greater AI propensity to settle in some situations, rebellion risk should be more noticeable for player controlled empires that press on in the same situation. Border colonies should have growing risk of small rebellions, which are easily quelled, but which repeat and begin to grow in size, bleeding slowly into your core worlds, until the change in war weariness is zero or declining.
• Certain races and government types should have different reactions to combinations of +/- war score and war weariness. Some may demand a war be settled quickly once there is any positive war score, others expect a minimum war score (as a share of enemy empire size) regardless of duration, etc.
• Annihilating population should generate a similar amount of war score as capturing that population - in both cases you've deprived the enemy of economic output. The difference should be in reputation impact, which should be enormously negative and durable for annihilation.

Summary: in general I think the combination of war score, war weariness, (un)happiness and rebellion, and reputation can already do most of what would feel "right", but the values in these systems need a rebalance, as do the thresholds were an AI is amenable to negotiation or the player under pressure to settle or face cascading rebellion. All of these should be highly differentiated by government and race multipliers, and those of the opposing empire, in a way that is visible (if not perfectly spelt out) to the player.

[frankycl]

[*] Bombardment of enemy population should always be net positive war score, (...)

No, only if the colony is conquered/exterminated in the end it has/should have something to do with war-score, imho.
(I think you mixed that up with the effects on relation-values - that are already in the game, like you suggested it. )

The history past should matter a huge amount, (...)

That's another example for a function that's already in the game - only that it belongs to relation-values and not to wars.

[*] The impact of a positive or negative war score on war weariness should scale proportional to the size of your economy. (...)

No, not agreed. - War weariness is something that belongs to the population of your empire in general - and should NOT be dependent of specific single sections of your empire-management, like e.g. economics or finances, imho.
War weariness of a e.g. Boskaran-population would certainly not get (or should not get) influenced by how much their empire wins or loses economically - but they would/should have always have a low war wariness, simply because their "nature" is expanding, consuming and conquering, imho - independent of the odds to be/or not to be victorious with this.

However, what you suggested/claimed should have an impact on their willingness to end/continue the war in general, I think - but that's something else, because it doesn't only depend on war-wariness.

[*] In general, the entire system of negotiation for peace when there is a significant war score needs re-balance. AI empires should be more willing to settle for peace without concessions, and peace with concessions, under clearly thresholds (e.g. >50% of maximum possible war score if I destroyed the entire enemy fleet and economy). This should vary by race/government bilateral combinations - e.g. Human democracy will need a worse negative war score and war weariness to surrender with concessions to a Dhayut hive mind, than to another Human democracy.

Yes, that's something I can agree with.
(But in general that's not a very big problem atm, according to my experiences - at least with normal/default aggression- and difficulty-levels.)

[*] To balance greater AI propensity to settle in some situations, rebellion risk should be more noticeable for player controlled empires (...)

Yes, also agreed - but that's an additional topic, I think.

[*] Annihilating population should generate a similar amount of war score as capturing that population (...)

That's also already in the game, according to my experiences - only that it belongs to relation-values and not to wars.

Belonging to the war-score is allways the RESULT of those actions (= losing/adding the colony/planet - depending on its size, etc.) - but this should (and I think it does) always additionally depend of the the race and/or government-types that achieves/suffers those results.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Many great ideas is tossing around in here...

The general idea from my initial though is that war weariness is one thing but its impact on the population should be another, also based on what happens in a war.

Invading colonies, enslaving your population or simply annihilate them through vicious bombardment should to some degree unify resistance rather than corroding it if the circumstance are the right ones. Continuous fighting over some remote mining operations are likely to just upset the population and demand a stop to the hostilities.

I'm sure it can all de done within the current framework of the game when you look at things like reputation and all other factors.

One new factor that could be added to the game is your civilian populations relations with other empires, this value should be much more important for a democracy or republic than a hive mind, but everyone should be effected by it.

Every action the player takes will then be judged by the population and their happiness will go up and down based on that. If your civilians enjoyed a good trading income with the Teekans and you suddenly declare war with them they will likely be upset and lower happiness at the onset of that war and will demand you stop it as soon as possible or you will have to live with the consequences of that.

A single new value could do so much for the game in many different ways, including fixing my original concerns. This civilian relations can be used for many things in the game and not just for how war weariness is impacted in a war.

[frankycl]

One new factor that could be added to the game is your civilian populations relations with other empires, this value should be much more important for a democracy or republic than a hive mind, but everyone should be effected by it.

Every action the player takes will then be judged by the population and their happiness will go up and down based on that. If your civilians enjoyed a good trading income with the Teekans and you suddenly declare war with them they will likely be upset and lower happiness at the onset of that war and will demand you stop it as soon as possible or you will have to live with the consequences of that.

Yes, very good ideas, imho.
- And additionally the main race-maxims/natures (military, cultural and tech-based, etc.) should be taken into account for these "relations with other empires", too (or more than they are part of the system, already), I think.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes... that would obviously be the idea I guess. Some races are more receptive to positive or negative opinion on the other. This way the player would have to at least deal with some form of internal wants and needs, or at least deal with the overall relationships between the civilian cultures around them.

You can still do whatever you want, but some actions might have more or less severe consequences to the overall state of affairs in an empire.

[AKicebear]

[*] Bombardment of enemy population should always be net positive war score, (...)

No, only if the colony is conquered/exterminated in the end it has/should have something to do with war-score, imho.
(I think you mixed that up with the effects on relation-values - that are already in the game, like you suggested it. )

Thanks for the comments, I disagree on some but others made me think a bit more carefully about the systems.

I suppose we differ somewhat on how we think of these concepts. The (not necessarily easy) solution is to make events that contribute to war score, war weariness, reputation and diplomatic opinion all open to modding. I imagine a long list of "events" - ship destruction, planet capture, espionage failure/success, etc - where I could assign some discrete (on/off) or continuous (multiplier) value to indicate if that value should contribute to reputation, etc and how much compared to the base game. If others disagree with me that planet destruction should matter more in all of the factor, they can zero that out (or I can multiply it up).

My own thinking on the categories:

• War score - all damage dealt to ships, bases, colonies. If a colony capture takes away X economic output, the same is true of a colony destroyed via bombardment. Normalized by the maximum possible war score - if you annihilated the entire target empire. Should calculate the same for all empires.
• War weariness - the accumulation of the costs of war, with a (non-linear?) time factor. The cost of the war on your people, who eventually are fed up with it. May calculate differently for different empires, given a varying time factor (resistance to war weariness). At high levels (empire specific?) starts to trigger small but growing anti-war rebellions, higher corruption reducing the tax base, lower happiness and thus lower tax collection, etc.
• Reputation - good/evil meter. My impression is the system is what I want, but the values per event and duration are badly balanced - in general I want reputation to matter much more for some events (bombardment), and for much longer for most events (25-100 years before full decay - bad reputation is multi-generation). Is a universal value, that each empire may respond to differently.
• Diplomatic opinion - reputation but only for bilateral factors - an evil race may not care about my negative reputation spy and bombarding another empire, but they care a lot when I do it to them specifically. Again, I think the system is probably fine but mostly want to rebalance the consequences to be larger/more durable. Is calculated per each empire-pair.

As always, the answer is to make it moddable!

[frankycl]

The (not necessarily easy) solution is to make events that contribute to war score, war weariness, reputation and diplomatic opinion all open to modding.
(...)
As always, the answer is to make it moddable!

I still think that several of your listed points are already in the game - but I also would wish to be able to tweak them here and there - and that's why I can strongly agree to the gneral solution/answer you are suggesting: "make it moddable!"