Cb's for all, really?

[Mr Tex]

While reading the stellaris wiki it stated that we will need claims to take planets in wars, and that war and diplomacy will be similar to Ck2 and Eu4.
However these two systems make no sense for a game such as this.
For example why would/should a xenophobic warlike empire recognise that a different civilization has any right to own a planet. A civilization such as this would just go in and take it, not caring about "claims" because in all honesty this type of civ would have claim to the whole galaxy.
Instead an empire should take large diplomatic hits with his neighbors, and the allies of the nation who was attacked I.e. AE in eu4.
However this should also be dynamic.
For example early game people are grabbing planets etc. etc. So its more of a "lawless" period allowing for greater gains in war without others being angry. Due to the fact that no one has owned the planets long enough to really claim they are an integral part of the civ.
Mid game people are starting to form federations and beginning to stabilize their empire. This is when the diplomatic hits will be larger and people will start making laws against taking planets and swathes of territory. Maybe even declaring a civ an enemy of the federation.
Finally late game everything will be more or less stabilized. War expansion will be seen like it is today, where its very very rare and seen with a universal negative outlook with civs being embargoed and isolated from the galatic community.

This is what I would prefer peace deals and war to be like in stellaris, dynamic with the periods, not static and samey like the other pdx games.

What do y'all think?

 

[fromar]

I would imagine xenophobic warlike empires would have a CB similar to holy wars in CK2. They would be able to declare war against anyone not like them, but there would be a stronger response from other empires.

The bigger and easier-to-get the CB, the bigger the response will likely be.

 

[valergain]

I think we talked about this already.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...stem-make-sense-for-this-kind-of-game.878553/

Basic consensus was that as long people can use planets while at war, and we have different kinds of CB's for different kinds of species it will be fine.

 

[ashbery76]

Because space 4x games all have the DOW at will system and it just becomes a war of annihilation.

 

[Mr Tex]

Sorry maybe I should be more clear I think that:
early game cb's are optional and are not necessary, allowing people to take what they want with little reaction from the galactic community.

Mid game, cb's become are helpful to have however we can still declare war without them, and take want whatever we want. With large backlashes from the galactic community.

Late game, cb's are almost necessary leading to very large outcrys from the galactic community.


I'm not arguing about using planets during war or other such things.

What Im really asking for is dynasmin in wars and the peace deals.
Not a static samey system for possibly more than 1k years of gameplay (hopeful thought) a system copy and pasted from the other pdx games.

 

[Mathrafalovich]

Casus Belli aren't just for international benefit, they're also needed back home. Some cultures may be willing to accept "Casus Belli: Because F you, that's why" and get right down to slaughtering. Others may demand a very well founded and carefully considered reason. I assume that your civ's ethics will be a large driver of what CBs are available to you.

Also, you can pretty much take what you want in the EUIV CB system, you don't have to stick to the war goals.

EDIT: For example, a Zealous race may get a Evangelical CB to spread the good word to the unbelievers, or an outright Holy War CB to drive the heathens out. A Xenophobic civ may have easy access to a Purge the Xeno! CB. A Xenophilic or freedom loving species could have a Liberation CB to free aliens enslaved by other empires, etc.

 

[Melian Erios]

The casus bellis wouldn't be solely reliant on claims. Like in EU4 zealots who take religious ideas get the holy war casus belli, it's likely more xenophobic nations will get other casus belli to use.

 

[Generalmonkey]

Casus Belli literally means Cause of War. It's not just for stating to other nations why you're doing it, but it's also the reason why your people within your own nation are going to war. For instance if you are a xenophobic imperialistic people, then that's your casus belli, your reason for going to war. Or if you're a peaceful people who believe in freedom, your casus belli might be to liberate some one else. This is why you lose stability in eu4 when you declare war with out one, it's because your own people need a reason to go to war.

 

[Fawr]

Just because a race is xenophobic doesn't mean its dumb. Most races capable of space travel should be able to look at the consequences of everyone allying together against them and, and be able to decide they don't want to be that race.

Of course it may be interesting to play a race more like the CK2 mongols who can be everyone's enemy, but it should be rare.

 

[Guthuk Gaming]

1. Because without this system every war is a war of annihilation.

2. Losing every planet and therefore the game in a single war is not fun.

3. Nobody else has ever found a solution to this problem. The peace deal system is the only solution ever found in a game.

The only "solution" other than this is to hard code the AI to not just wipe out the player and rather peace out after killing a few cities like some other games do. Which is incredibly stupid. If you go play a game like Endless Legends in multiplayer for example (it's just about the closest thing to Stellaris you'll get) it's common for a player to lose in about 5 turns after mid game. You get sneak attacked, lose a city immediately, and from there they just hop city to city before you can organize a defense, and then your 4 hour 150 turn game is over.

 

[Heatth]

People keep forgetting how cb work in Paradox Games. In both Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis, the cb types are not universaly shared across all cultures. Some have an easier time getting one than others. Are people worried about their war crazy races not being able to invade on the drop of the hat? That shouldn't be a problem at all. Again, in both previous games, people like the Steppe Nomads had an automatic cb against just about every neighbor. Stellaris should be no different. Some racial traits or whatever will likely give easy/free cb against everybody else.

 

[ShoGuL]

The scenario you are describing about the early game could also be handled differently, like colonial grabs in EU4 or Victoria 2.. maybe a planet can be contested until it's been fully colonized and recognized as belonging to your empire?

 

[Mr Tex]

The scenario you are describing about the early game could also be handled differently, like colonial grabs in EU4 or Victoria 2.. maybe a planet can be contested until it's been fully colonized and recognized as belonging to your empire?

Yeah something like that, as I said I really dont want to see the same rules apply to warfare in the beggining of the game as they are late game. In my mind early game should be as you said people grabbing colonies and contesting the claims. However also during this period no one is going to have been long term friends or enemies so I dont imagine there being large outcries from the community about a civs goin to war early on.
However later on I can see the community being more outraged by the violence and warfare of others, leading to more coalitions and federations being formed out of trying to survive and be protected from a warlike civ. Leading to a mid game where federations and coalitions are begining to be stabilised and formed.
And Late game, where as I said before, is where open conflict almost never happens i.e. today in the world. With large stable federations and empires and coalitions being blocks to others, making a great time for the catastrophies to come in and wreck havoc.

Which would also lead to a cool dynamic mechanic of allowing civs to become historical friends or rivals over time.
If two civs keep an alliance, and relations above X number for X amount of years they get a "historical friends" modifier.
But if two civs have -X amount of relations for X amount of years they get a "historical Rival/enemy" modifier.

 

[Mr Tex]

1. Because without this system every war is a war of annihilation.

2. Losing every planet and therefore the game in a single war is not fun.

3. Nobody else has ever found a solution to this problem. The peace deal system is the only solution ever found in a game.

The only "solution" other than this is to hard code the AI to not just wipe out the player and rather peace out after killing a few cities like some other games do. Which is incredibly stupid. If you go play a game like Endless Legends in multiplayer for example (it's just about the closest thing to Stellaris you'll get) it's common for a player to lose in about 5 turns after mid game. You get sneak attacked, lose a city immediately, and from there they just hop city to city before you can organize a defense, and then your 4 hour 150 turn game is over.

1. Well if you're fighting a nation like the Borg from Star Trek or the Daliks from Dr Who then for them every war is for annihilation, slavery or both. I think very very few nations should have this mentality however I would like to see some civs have this mentality. However once more very very very few should, not every one.

2. Unless you form federations and expand/grow in military might then you kind of deserve being annexed in 1 war. For example playing Brittany in Eu4 if you refuse to make alliances and expand then France is gonna get you pretty early on, 1 war and youre out.

3. I think that either you didnt read the the posts and just the main title ( I agree the title needs to be changed but dont know how to do it) However im not arguing for a continuous round of war to the death, im asking for dynasim in peace deals and the Cbs for war. I dont think the same rules should apply for all civs and for all periods of the game time, I want it to be dynamic and naturally changing with the flow of the game.

Ive never heard of endless legends, but that sounds like playing Civ or Heroes of m&m? And I usually get takin out after mid game in those as well, I think it just comes with the genre. I dont know though.

 

[TheAtreides84]

While reading the stellaris wiki it stated that we will need claims to take planets in wars, and that war and diplomacy will be similar to Ck2 and Eu4.
However these two systems make no sense for a game such as this.
For example why would/should a xenophobic warlike empire recognise that a different civilization has any right to own a planet. A civilization such as this would just go in and take it, not caring about "claims" because in all honesty this type of civ would have claim to the whole galaxy.
Instead an empire should take large diplomatic hits with his neighbors, and the allies of the nation who was attacked I.e. AE in eu4.
However this should also be dynamic.
For example early game people are grabbing planets etc. etc. So its more of a "lawless" period allowing for greater gains in war without others being angry. Due to the fact that no one has owned the planets long enough to really claim they are an integral part of the civ.
Mid game people are starting to form federations and beginning to stabilize their empire. This is when the diplomatic hits will be larger and people will start making laws against taking planets and swathes of territory. Maybe even declaring a civ an enemy of the federation.
Finally late game everything will be more or less stabilized. War expansion will be seen like it is today, where its very very rare and seen with a universal negative outlook with civs being embargoed and isolated from the galatic community.

This is what I would prefer peace deals and war to be like in stellaris, dynamic with the periods, not static and samey like the other pdx games.

What do y'all think?

It would be cool if all the empires started in a free-for-all state (like the first contact wars of many sci-fi novels) and then started to know each other and develop a sort of "international right" to regulate claims, wars and use of mass destruction weapons. But it largely depens on how alien are the aliens. The Turians could be reasoned with easily, the Ethereals from XCOM to an extent, but the locust-like Indipendence Day aliens?