So after reading all these threads the most important thing Stellaris can do is avoid ...

[Pentel123]

Sure... there is always a chance for two democracies to go to war but it would most likely be a rather limited war at best. Most likely it will not happen and issues will be dealt with by diplomacy and pressures from other democratic countries for the parties to solve their issues peacefully.

As new generations are born and social injustice is reduced so will cultural issues vanish as well with it. As long as people feel secure and happy they will eventually set aside old grudges and start cooperate instead. This will be true everywhere... the key to having a stable Democracy is not forcing it down he throat but to encourage their citizen to change into it by increasing their education and economy at the same time thus increase the living standards.

China is not yet a democracy... but in my opinion China is closer to becoming one than Russia at the moment... if China is going down the same road it has the last decades it will most likely turn in to a relatively stable democracy sooner rather than later... that is my guess. I actually don't think China will be such a threat to world stability in the future even though they are pretty aggressive in their policies for the time being. But that is my personal opinion.

Mostly agree except for one thing. Cultural issue will always exist. This is because humans can only really care about around 10 to twenty people, and acknowledge a few more than that. Past that we start to see them as competitor and foes in some way shape or form, or as someone to be exploited in some fashion.

 

[safe-keeper]

EU is designed to be a military-heavy game, though, but I don't disagree. I think restrictions on how you get to use the fleet would go a long way here. Hearts of Iron 4 is to have a system where you need to tell troops to prepare, which takes time, before you actually order them to advance. If you do, they'll perform far better in combat. As they advance away from their provinces of origin, this bonus is decreased, and eventually it becomes a good idea to have them idle and reorganise to build up the combat bonus again for another offensive. In fact, they're considering giving you a penalty if you don't do it. Which makes sense, since you can't just order one million people to start doing something, they need time for planning, organising, logistics (supplies and whatnot), calling in off-duty people and what have you.

HOI4 also has a system in place where changing divisions or designing new ones actually cost points. You gain "combat experience" slowly during peaceitme an dmuch faster during wars, and spend them on altering your military, simulating how lessons from the battlefield are being applied to the military structure.

Something like this could work really well for Stellaris. You can have the biggest space navy the galaxy has ever seen, but if you can't manage it, suddenly you effectively have far fewer ships. Having some realistic and reasonable systems for fleet management would be both realistic and fun, and also be a good balancing factor. For example, fleets could take time to get ready for big operations, there could be a cap on how many fleets or ships could be operating simultaneously, giving orders to fleets could cost military points of some sorts, what have you.

So if you have 500 ships, and your enemy has 200, but you can only organise an offensive with, say, 250 of your ships, you can't crush your enemy outright right away, but you still have a big advantage given that if your first attempt fails, you still have lots of ships in reserve that you can prepare for a second invasion.

There could also be doctrines/policies/techs that affected things like how many fleets you could "field" at once, how good your admirals were at handling offensives, etc.

Having various things be trade-offs would be interesting, too. In the HOI3 mod BlackICE, many of the techs gave you bonuses in one field, but penalties in another. For example, if you wanted better indsutry, you would need more workers for your factories, which meant fewer men to recruit for the military.

 

[lwarmonger]

If I

The biggest threat to US hegemony these days is China, and there's no way the US would ever get involved in open war with China short of China getting involved in open war with the US or an ally. Trade is far more profitable for both parties, and both sides have nukes.

If I recall, in 1913 trade was given as a very widely believed reason why general war in Europe was unthinkable. It happened. If nukes are unusable, and so many people today believe that they are (unlike during the Cold War, where both sides acknowledged and agreed that a conventional war in Europe would quickly turn nuclear), then I fail to see how possession of them would stop a war between anyone when both sides have them.

 

[Durnilhas]

I totally agree with the author post. I'm a big fan of paradox grand strategy game. And like many i have 2k hour on eu4. The game is clearly a conquest-based game. Everything relly on army and war. You can grow withtout war, like portugal but... you will not win. If you accept this idea you will put all your effort on your army and it's why on mid/end game you can thing "ok i'm done with this i won". It's because you only have to compare army strengh. Futhermore there is no really good and deep gameplay toward army. So it's simple, military idea + stacking, go and crush.

I have also this question... Is stelaris will be another endless space and 4X like? Many little feature for everything but if you get a strong fleet you can "resolve" anything. Endless Space 2 bring an awasome feature : People have needs and thoughts. They wants things. Near frontier people want to be protected wereas inner territory. There are 8 faction that have influence and that let you get law. Each law bring bonus and more a faction get influence more they struggle others. That mean if you get a strong military faction, your economic one will be weak, the scientist too. Imagine something like that in Stelaris. Like the author said,

Military empires should be the strongest militarily, but they should have wide open gaping holes in their defenses that diplomatic, economic, and espionage acts can slip right on through.

Endless Space 2 try to do that.

I hope there will be something like that in Stellaris. Or something like "thinking people" in colony which give drawback or reaction to your overfollowed path. For exemple :
Too much economic empire? People protect themself with militia or private militia or even more : Colonies could be more like puppet with times while you are dying under your gold.
Too much militaristic? Half of your people is in the army, not enought to bred, trade, work the earth. No food no gold. And maybe you can have some "random" shit like the people that only know to fight, will become outlaw.

I read on a preview that you will have federation. It's something odd. Only leader can control army? In my opinion it's very interesting but maybe become the upper level of eu4 and his spaming army.
- "lets make a federation and rule them all with a 3 in 1 overteched fleet !!"

Beside that, i'm waiting for this game so much... hoping the "random" path they choose will not be the gameplay core ^^

 

[GrafKeks]

Ok... so to you the State is NOT the people but the military... I don't know what you get all those ideas from. The state is an extension of the people in a Democracy while the military is a supportive or service to the people not vice verse.

State funded research is as much a civilian endeavor as it is anything else. If that research can be applied to civilian or military use is irrelevant... and most research are done to further our knowledge to enhance our life not to make our weapons deadlier. Sure... some research are pure military but far from all research is.

The state is an institution supposed to be serving the people. It has its own life and as every bureaucratic system is mostly interested in perseverance. What I have written down is just economic & business relaty at no point I argue against the idealistic idea of the state serving the people. I think you have misunderstood me though

 

[TruckFeet]

If I


If I recall, in 1913 trade was given as a very widely believed reason why general war in Europe was unthinkable. It happened. If nukes are unusable, and so many people today believe that they are (unlike during the Cold War, where both sides acknowledged and agreed that a conventional war in Europe would quickly turn nuclear), then I fail to see how possession of them would stop a war between anyone when both sides have them.

China has even less reason to start a war than Germany and Austro-Hungary did. China is already well on the way to becoming the economic hegemon, because of the huge population, so it doesn't need to expand. Germany wanted colonies and so on in order to become the big power, but other countries wouldn't give them up for obvious reasons. So war was possible. China is already going to become the big power regardless, so they don't need to attack anyone.

They're usable if you think the other side is crazy enough to use them. How sure are you about how sure the U. S. government is that the Chinese government wouldn't use them? How sure is the Chinese government about how sure the U. S. is that China wouldn't use them? In any case, if there's a war, it makes plenty of sense to threaten to use them, and almost no sense to use them. But if you threaten to use them, you don't want to go back on your threats. It's all a Prisoner's Dilemma several layers deep.

 

[lwarmonger]

China has even less reason to start a war than Germany and Austro-Hungary did. China is already well on the way to becoming the economic hegemon, because of the huge population, so it doesn't need to expand. Germany wanted colonies and so on in order to become the big power, but other countries wouldn't give them up for obvious reasons. So war was possible. China is already going to become the big power regardless, so they don't need to attack anyone.

So I agree that war between China and the US is unlikely, but for a completely different reason that you. Trade does nothing to mitigate the threat of war, that China has peaked and is and will continue to become increasingly focused on internal problems has more to do with it. Much like Japan in the 1990's, the fact that China has peaked won't be recognized for a few years after... but China and the US will not have war because China will not be the nation who will compete for the top spot with the United States.

Germany didn't fight WWI because of colonies. Germany fought WWI because it was fundamentally insecure geopolitically, in between a hostile France on one side and Russia on the other. And the fact that they had an enormous amount of trade with France and Russia did nothing to mitigate that insecurity, so trade did nothing to mitigate the conflict. Much as Russia today is dependent on selling oil and natural gas to Europe and Europe is dependent on the natural gas at least (a little less so the oil), that trade is doing nothing to prevent Russia from adventurism (because it is fundamentally insecure due to its losses after the Cold War), or Eastern Europe (fundamentally insecure in between Russia and a currently dormant Germany) from responding forcefully with US assistance.

Trade is fundamentally less important to conflict than other factors, like fear, insecurity and geopolitical imperatives.

They're usable if you think the other side is crazy enough to use them. How sure are you about how sure the U. S. government is that the Chinese government wouldn't use them? How sure is the Chinese government about how sure the U. S. is that China wouldn't use them? In any case, if there's a war, it makes plenty of sense to threaten to use them, and almost no sense to use them. But if you threaten to use them, you don't want to go back on your threats. It's all a Prisoner's Dilemma several layers deep.

I can be sure because both the civilian and military sides of the US government do not take the prospect of nuclear war seriously. In the Cold War both sides took it very seriously, and the military did its best to be prepared to fight it. Plans and exercises around Europe were built around the premise that a conflict there would involve nukes at some point. The "crazy enough to use them" fear, at least against us, is something that the United States really only has about North Korea... and even then on the military side people are pretty sure that the North Koreans are so focused on regime preservation it is unlikely. We do not plan operations around nuclear weapons outside of the Korean Peninsula anymore... but we do plan operations around fighting peer or near peer competitors. So no, nukes will not stop a conflict where neither side thinks the other will use them. They essentially become a neutral factor.

 

[Vanhal]

Couldn't agree more to the OP. Although it may be hard to avoid usual 4x trap of victory conditions (look at Beyond Earth what to avoid, why the game is nice after they fixed the trade, it's victories are incredibly bland).

 

[Elfryc]

China has even less reason to start a war than Germany and Austro-Hungary did. China is already well on the way to becoming the economic hegemon, because of the huge population, so it doesn't need to expand. Germany wanted colonies and so on in order to become the big power, but other countries wouldn't give them up for obvious reasons. So war was possible. China is already going to become the big power regardless, so they don't need to attack anyone.

Economics may lead China to wage war.
Just as an example, China is obivously lacking arable land to feed its own population, explaining why they buy giant farms in Africa.
Regarding resources, China is also lacking some, which explains why China entreprises are exploiting mines in Australia or oil wells in Northern Africa.
And when China is offered the possibility to seize territories providing both oils, gaz and fish while securing trade routes in the same time (like this is the case in South China Sea), there's a risk of war.

Obviously, this doesn't mean China will declare war, it only means they may declare war. USA are interested allies for some countries involved in the South China Sea claims, and may intervene if they want to protect them or preserve a statut quo. Probably USA are a good reasons for China to don't risk of any armed intervention there.
Now, let's imagine that for any reason the USA can't intervene here, or there is a war in the region: China may well seize any occasion (peace enforcement, etc.) to seize territories there.

 

[Knotz]

So uhm. Back to space:

a popular, largely pacifist empire should actively pursue forming some kind of confederation with others if they're being randomly picked on by a military nation. These should be big and stable and if they join they should retract any kind of support from the aggressor and close their borders to trade/travel with them. Going to war would mean going to war with them all. This doesn't mean much if you're already massive but that's always gonna be an issue, if you're so huge nothing can stand in your way nothing is going to stand in your way. Internal strife potentially increases as your warmongering effects your citizens more and more.

a scientifically advanced empire fights with bio- and cyberwarfare. You win a war with them and take one one of their planets only to find that they've engineered some ubervirus and left it behind as a parting gift. It stays largely dormant for a few months but is still extremely infectious and then BAM! Millions of your people are suddenly dying all across your empire, your scrambling for a cure while your enemies are pouncing your weakening defenses and the scientific race offers you the cure for giving their planet back. And maybe one or two of yours as interest ofc. Cyberwarfare would be similar except your spacetravel devices may no longer work or habitat domes might malfunction etc.

a wealthy trade empire simply retracts their business and various subsidiaries from your empire, unless there's like an option that explicitly states no other empires are allowed to do any kind of business in your place. Your economy is ravaged and political unrest skyrockets, funded by the merchant empire. Space pirates attack your remaining trade routes and isolated planets. Neighbouring empires are bribe into attacking you etc.

if there's such a thing as an espionage focused empire a mix of the above happen but to less focused degrees, rebels spring up, some of your ships or stargates explode, random plagues break out, your leader units get assassinated and their replacements don't actually work for you and so have a much higher rate of failure than the norm and some of your research get destroyed and/or stolen and sold to your enemies.



Warmongering shouldn't be removed as a way of advancing, obviously. But there should be some recognition that unless you're grossly advanced you're playing in a sandbox with people just as savvy and dangerous as you. War is expensive and time consuming and dangerous, it shouldn't generally be an advanced and enlightened race's first choice for expansion.

 

[Precursor]

Sure... there is always a chance for two democracies to go to war but it would most likely be a rather limited war at best. Most likely it will not happen and issues will be dealt with by diplomacy and pressures from other democratic countries for the parties to solve their issues peacefully.

As new generations are born and social injustice is reduced so will cultural issues vanish as well with it. As long as people feel secure and happy they will eventually set aside old grudges and start cooperate instead. This will be true everywhere... the key to having a stable Democracy is not forcing it down he throat but to encourage their citizen to change into it by increasing their education and economy at the same time thus increase the living standards.

China is not yet a democracy... but in my opinion China is closer to becoming one than Russia at the moment... if China is going down the same road it has the last decades it will most likely turn in to a relatively stable democracy sooner rather than later... that is my guess. I actually don't think China will be such a threat to world stability in the future even though they are pretty aggressive in their policies for the time being. But that is my personal opinion.

Then explain the increasingly aggressive posture the PRC has taken? If they're becoming more democratic why has that coincided not with more peaceful behavior, but more militaristic and aggressive behavior?

Education does not require you teach people to be nice. You can very much teach them that land in your neighbors hands rightful belongs to you and they are evil for taking it. Or maybe downplay past actions as not really so bad.

 

[TheDungen]

As for tall building empires versus wide conquering. Consider the spanish armada. The spanish was at the time one of the most powerful nation on earth. They controlled vast territories and was part of the habsburg doman which held most power in europe too. And they descendd upon the msall island country of enland who had yet to create it's first colony and were over a century away from consolidating it's poistion on the island and become great brittain. The spanish came with the greatest fleet the world had seen up until then, but the brittish had better ships and thus won. Because they were a smalll focused nation with science economic growth and philosophical thinking.

Also consider the resistance movements of ww2, any counquering nation in space would find itself facing massive internal struggles just with holding on to it's territories, consider freedom fighters and terrorists. In fact even federations or leagues of nations should face internal problems from time to time look at the EU right now, they're facing a crisis of faith in the system of the union, look at the holy roman empire and the struggles that led up to it's decline (easily the most intresting mechanic in eu4, could be less linear though), any factions should have these crisises, more so if they're conquerors. Not losing territory to these sometimes should be nearly impossible, even with careful manouvering (even if they should be able to reduce the chances of it happening immensly), you'll just have to hope you can reintegrate your lost territories down the line (either through military or diplomatic means). If you chose to spread power then making war should be more difficult (more people you have to convince) but holding on to your territories will be easier (consider the american revolution had the brittish given them representation then the war may never have happened).

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Then explain the increasingly aggressive posture the PRC has taken? If they're becoming more democratic why has that coincided not with more peaceful behavior, but more militaristic and aggressive behavior?

Education does not require you teach people to be nice. You can very much teach them that land in your neighbors hands rightful belongs to you and they are evil for taking it. Or maybe downplay past actions as not really so bad.

I just said they have been on the right track and are improving their society and over time I do think they will become more open. This is a gradual change and will not change over night. But as the general population become more informed and there is a greater pull for change it is possible. I just happen to think it is closer than most people think. For me that is more of a gut feeling than facts... thus a personal opinion. You may have yours, I don't mind...

 

[TruckFeet]

So uhm. Back to space:

a popular, largely pacifist empire should actively pursue forming some kind of confederation with others if they're being randomly picked on by a military nation. These should be big and stable and if they join they should retract any kind of support from the aggressor and close their borders to trade/travel with them. Going to war would mean going to war with them all. This doesn't mean much if you're already massive but that's always gonna be an issue, if you're so huge nothing can stand in your way nothing is going to stand in your way. Internal strife potentially increases as your warmongering effects your citizens more and more.

a scientifically advanced empire fights with bio- and cyberwarfare. You win a war with them and take one one of their planets only to find that they've engineered some ubervirus and left it behind as a parting gift. It stays largely dormant for a few months but is still extremely infectious and then BAM! Millions of your people are suddenly dying all across your empire, your scrambling for a cure while your enemies are pouncing your weakening defenses and the scientific race offers you the cure for giving their planet back. And maybe one or two of yours as interest ofc. Cyberwarfare would be similar except your spacetravel devices may no longer work or habitat domes might malfunction etc.

a wealthy trade empire simply retracts their business and various subsidiaries from your empire, unless there's like an option that explicitly states no other empires are allowed to do any kind of business in your place. Your economy is ravaged and political unrest skyrockets, funded by the merchant empire. Space pirates attack your remaining trade routes and isolated planets. Neighbouring empires are bribe into attacking you etc.

if there's such a thing as an espionage focused empire a mix of the above happen but to less focused degrees, rebels spring up, some of your ships or stargates explode, random plagues break out, your leader units get assassinated and their replacements don't actually work for you and so have a much higher rate of failure than the norm and some of your research get destroyed and/or stolen and sold to your enemies.



Warmongering shouldn't be removed as a way of advancing, obviously. But there should be some recognition that unless you're grossly advanced you're playing in a sandbox with people just as savvy and dangerous as you. War is expensive and time consuming and dangerous, it shouldn't generally be an advanced and enlightened race's first choice for expansion.

Biowarfare would be especially useful in a universe where most of your enemies will be entire species, since it makes it much easier to target that species and leave others alone.

 

[Guthuk Gaming]

Alright so once again for like the third time:

If military is all that matters, then maxing your military is all that matters, and we'll once again end up in EU4 land where every some decision and event has to be based on whether or not it will make your military matter.

I don't know how this has gotten SO off track.

 

[Tecumseh23]

I just said they have been on the right track and are improving their society and over time I do think they will become more open. This is a gradual change and will not change over night. But as the general population become more informed and there is a greater pull for change it is possible. I just happen to think it is closer than most people think. For me that is more of a gut feeling than facts... thus a personal opinion. You may have yours, I don't mind...

I find your lack of cynicism disturbing.

Not to make this thread any more off topic than it already is, but do you really believe that democracy will make a perfect world? And that the U.S. is actively trying to spread democracy in order to improve people's lives? As someone who lives in the U.S., I personally find that very hard to believe, but I'd love to hear your reasoning.

As for democracies being unable to fight an "immoral" war (instead always being against some evildoer, for the best of intentions, which is far as I can tell is your argument; please correct me if I'm wrong), I'd like to direct you to the U.S.-Mexican War and the Spanish-American War (especially the U.S. colonization of the Philippines)--and also to the Iraq, Afghanistan, Persian Gulf, and Vietnam wars, and the War of 1812, all of which were initiated by the U.S. (though of course, U.S. Congress has not formally declared any war since World War II; legally speaking, there have only been "police actions" since then). I'll give you World War II--though fun fact, the U.S. was only brought into the European war because Germany honored their alliance with Japan and declared war on us after we did to Japan; and since there was up to that point still vocal opposition both from the people and Congressmen against war with Germany, it's reasonable to imagine that the U.S. may have allowed Germany to steamroll Europe without intervening. Whether or not the U.S. joined World War I for "moral reasons" is another discussion, and I'd also be interested in what you have to say about the Civil War.

Closing up, if you ever get a chance to read some of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, do. Not that I necessarily agree with everything Zinn says, but there's really no better way to cure patriotism.

 

[Precursor]

I find your lack of cynicism disturbing.

Not to make this thread any more off topic than it already is, but do you really believe that democracy will make a perfect world? And that the U.S. is actively trying to spread democracy in order to improve people's lives? As someone who lives in the U.S., I personally find that very hard to believe, but I'd love to hear your reasoning.

As for democracies being unable to fight an "immoral" war (instead always being against some evildoer, for the best of intentions, which is far as I can tell is your argument; please correct me if I'm wrong), I'd like to direct you to the U.S.-Mexican War and the Spanish-American War (especially the U.S. colonization of the Philippines)--and also to the Iraq, Afghanistan, Persian Gulf, and Vietnam wars, and the War of 1812, all of which were initiated by the U.S. (though of course, U.S. Congress has not formally declared any war since World War II; legally speaking, there have only been "police actions" since then). I'll give you World War II--though fun fact, the U.S. was only brought into the European war because Germany honored their alliance with Japan and declared war on us after we did to Japan; and since there was up to that point still vocal opposition both from the people and Congressmen against war with Germany, it's reasonable to imagine that the U.S. may have allowed Germany to steamroll Europe without intervening. Whether or not the U.S. joined World War I for "moral reasons" is another discussion, and I'd also be interested in what you have to say about the Civil War.

Closing up, if you ever get a chance to read some of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, do. Not that I necessarily agree with everything Zinn says, but there's really no better way to cure patriotism.

Can you please explain how the Persian Gulf War was 'immoral' it was authorised by the UNSC.
I'm also really curious how Kosovo was left off this list.

 

[Tecumseh23]

Can you please explain how the Persian Gulf War was 'immoral' it was authorised by the UNSC.
I'm also really curious how Kosovo was left off this list.

I'll admit I'm not an expert on Kosovo, but it definitely could be put on this list; I just put down the first wars that came to mind.

I'm sorry that I brought up the word "immoral," because that's a really silly word to use when we're talking about war. A better description might be, "self-serving" or "being based on non-moralistic desires" which could describe to some extent every war ever fought--which was my point. Just because a country is a democracy doesn't mean it suddenly can do no wrong--it wants what's best for itself, the same as every other country, and if that involves doing horrible things to people on the other side of the globe, that's a choice it can make just as easily as a dictatorship can (though probably more slowly, because bureaucracy).

The Persian Gulf War is an example of how a war fought under moralistic pretenses--it's defending a country under attack, it was authorized by the UN, etc--can still ultimately be used to enrich the country fighting it. In this case, the defense of Kuwait was done more to protect the oil trade than the people of Kuwait; it definitely was NOT done to promote democracy (Kuwait is to this day infamous for human rights abuses, particularly human trafficking). I'd also like to point out that just because the UNSC authorizes something, does not automatically make it "moral"--the UN does not decide right and wrong.

 

[lwarmonger]

I'll admit I'm not an expert on Kosovo, but it definitely could be put on this list; I just put down the first wars that came to mind.

I'm sorry that I brought up the word "immoral," because that's a really silly word to use when we're talking about war. A better description might be, "self-serving" or "being based on non-moralistic desires" which could describe to some extent every war ever fought--which was my point. Just because a country is a democracy doesn't mean it suddenly can do no wrong--it wants what's best for itself, the same as every other country, and if that involves doing horrible things to people on the other side of the globe, that's a choice it can make just as easily as a dictatorship can (though probably more slowly, because bureaucracy).

The Persian Gulf War is an example of how a war fought under moralistic pretenses--it's defending a country under attack, it was authorized by the UN, etc--can still ultimately be used to enrich the country fighting it. In this case, the defense of Kuwait was done more to protect the oil trade than the people of Kuwait; it definitely was NOT done to promote democracy (Kuwait is to this day infamous for human rights abuses, particularly human trafficking). I'd also like to point out that just because the UNSC authorizes something, does not automatically make it "moral"--the UN does not decide right and wrong.

Why is fighting a war for national interest being frowned upon? Why is a war based off of "moralistic desires" or good intentions considered to be a good thing? What makes removing Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator if there ever was one, less of a "moral" endstate for a war then the removal of Hitler... also a brutal dictator, albeit of a more powerful country? And why was fighting to preserve South Vietnam less of a moral goal then fighting to preserve England and France during two world wars? Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese catholics didn't immigrate to the US because they were going to be treated well by the communist regime after the war.

All of these wars were waged because they were in our self interest (at least as perceived at the time). It was not in the US interest to see communism dominate South East Asia, it was in our interest to intimidate Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria into joining the war on terror, and it was in our interest to prevent Germany from dominating Europe and Japan from dominating the Western Pacific. So why are some considered moral and some not? Why is it being implied that a nation waging war to defend its perceived interests is immoral? That doesn't make any sense.

Morality is found in the manner in which war is conducted, not in the reasons or even outcomes for war. Those are negotiable, and far too dependent upon what side you are on and/or the position of your own country (one's thinking is shaped by the margin of error your own country has in terms of its power and surroundings, someone living in Sweden lives in a much safer neighborhood with far greater margin for error than someone living in Israel... how one perceives foreign affairs and what one things is justified is shaped by that, and it is very easy to judge the actions of others when you have no stake in their conflict and don't have to make hard decisions in your own backyard). Japan was not an immoral country in World War II because they needed to gain resource security... that was and is a completely legitimate reason to go to war, because without the resources they made a bid for, they would have stopped being an industrial nation in about 6 months. They were an immoral nation because of the barbaric manner in which they conducted themselves during the conflict. They had systemic issues (as opposed to individual faults that were generally punished) with how they treated civilian populations under their control, prisoners of war, and that is why they were, and deserved to be, condemned both during and after the war.

I don't judge Russia for pushing West. They are pursuing their national interest and attempting to establish a minimum sphere of influence before their industry falls too far behind the West and their demographic problems catch up with them. That being said, I also don't judge the Eastern Europeans for fighting back... it is just as much an imperative for them to not be dominated by the Russians if they wish to be free. It is in the United State's interest to prevent Russia from pushing back west, and I will happily do anything that needs doing to allow the US to succeed in that goal. The conduct of the sides determine their morality... not that they have the will, or their reasons to fight.

 

[Ivashanko]

Other games have successfully shifted focus to a not-military side of thing. Heck, even mods for EU3 have made it so non-military ideas are oftentimes less useful than military ones (I'm thinking Magna Mundi, though I'm sure some for EU4 do this as well), so it can certainly be done.

 

[Precursor]

I'll admit I'm not an expert on Kosovo, but it definitely could be put on this list; I just put down the first wars that came to mind.

I'm sorry that I brought up the word "immoral," because that's a really silly word to use when we're talking about war. A better description might be, "self-serving" or "being based on non-moralistic desires" which could describe to some extent every war ever fought--which was my point. Just because a country is a democracy doesn't mean it suddenly can do no wrong--it wants what's best for itself, the same as every other country, and if that involves doing horrible things to people on the other side of the globe, that's a choice it can make just as easily as a dictatorship can (though probably more slowly, because bureaucracy).

The Persian Gulf War is an example of how a war fought under moralistic pretenses--it's defending a country under attack, it was authorized by the UN, etc--can still ultimately be used to enrich the country fighting it. In this case, the defense of Kuwait was done more to protect the oil trade than the people of Kuwait; it definitely was NOT done to promote democracy (Kuwait is to this day infamous for human rights abuses, particularly human trafficking). I'd also like to point out that just because the UNSC authorizes something, does not automatically make it "moral"--the UN does not decide right and wrong.

You completely ignored the most important aspect of the war. Sovereignty.

The people of Kuwait may not matter, but protecting the very foundation of modern international society on which the UN is built is. The Gulf War represents perhaps the highest expression, and protection of Article 2(4). Further Iraq was violating a jus cogens norm which necessitates a response. I also don't see why ending up 'enriching' presents a problem. All status quo, and non-greedy, states benefited from the Gulf War.

The oil trade is irrelevant in comparison, I'd also note given Iraq needs to sell oil, the war would be entirely unnecessary since they'd have sold Kuwaiti oil.