War Philosophy policy: should Defensive Wars be tempered and expanded?

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Revisiting an old topic, from a (hopefully) new angle.

Currently, War Philosophy has three policy options. As per the wiki, and using Unrestricted Wars as the point of reference, they compare to each other as per the table below:

	Rivalry effects​	Territorial claims​	Everything else​
Unrestricted Wars	Animosity casus belli	Any time (i.e. peace and offensive wars)	No changes to other casus belli
Liberation Wars	Ideology casus belli	Only during defensive wars	No changes to other casus belli
Defensive Wars	Animosity casus belli (but cannot be used)	Only during defensive wars	Cannot declare war, except for independence wars

When comparing the three war philosophies, some things stand out in regards to Defensive Wars:

• It lacks a distinct rivalry effect of its own.
  • (Anecdotally, the main use of Defensive Wars rivalries seems to be about antagonizing other empires into attacking, so that "defensive territorial claims" can be made.)
• In regards to territorial claims, there is no further gradient between Liberation Wars and Defensive Wars.
• It is the only war philosophy that affects war declarations beyond the effects of rivalries and claims.
• Where the other two philosophy names represent different specialisations, the name Defensive Wars instead represents a dramatic restriction.
  • (Liberation Wars is not restricted to only liberation wars, but Defensive Wars is restricted to only defensive wars. This is an inconsistency.)

The overall inability to declare wars is a massive penalty and limitation on gameplay, having a level of impact that one might primarily associate with the kind of civics that drastically alter gameplay, like Inward Perfection. It can also be argued that the effects of the policy go far beyond what the name implies; it is more like "No Wars" than "Defensive Wars". The description of the policy says that "Violence is a last resort to ensure the integrity of our nation", but in many circumstances the actual restrictions do not even allow violence as a last resort - because sometimes the last viable resort (and perhaps also the least violent one) is to act proactively, but Defensive Wars is not allowed to act proactively. Even when failing to do so can have existential consequences, as it may be too late to stop the other party by the time you finally get their declaration of war.

And the issue does not stop at epic existential wars; the stark difference between the "Defensive Wars" name and the "No Wars" reality can also be seen in less dramatic circumstances. If someone attacks our good neighbour, we are not allowed to defend them. If someone insults* us publicly, we can not defend our honour because we are neither unrestricted conquerors nor ideological liberators. If a criminal syndicate infests our worlds, we are not allowed to evict them using the Expropriation casus belli. If someone attacks a fellow member of the Galactic Community, we are not allowed to use the Counterattack casus belli even though it is completely defensive in spirit. If a genocidal empire is rampaging through the neighbourhood, we are similarly not allowed to use the Containment casus belli, even though the fundamental purpose is clearly defensive. Perhaps worst of all, we cannot even use the Galatron Access Denied casus belli to defend our inalienable right of access to the Galatron.

* In my opinion. Insults could give the recipient a temporary modifier that reduces their Political Weight and/or Influence gain while giving them an Animosity casus belli against the sender, and Humiliated empires should be unable to send Insults. Alternatively, Insults could be a diplomatic way of Humiliating other empires; if they accept the insult, they get Humiliated - if they do not want to accept the insult, they need to declare war to Humiliate the sender instead.

In summary, time and time again Defensive Wars seems to be more like "No Wars", as if it is modelled after an extreme type of pacifism - one that would best be handled as a civic - rather than Defensive Wars being a viable alternative to Unrestricted Wars and Liberation Wars for empires who are interested in neither of those two.

It would not take much to make Defensive Wars a better balanced alternative, more like the other two but with a clear tilt towards defensive wars. To make it serve a bigger gameplay role than hamstringing the Fanatic Pacifist ethic. All it takes is that the name is interpreted in the same way as the names of Unrestricted Wars and Liberation Wars: as a specialisation, not a restriction.

• Drop the restriction on declaring wars.
  • The lack of aggressive territorial claims and ideological casus belli is already a massive reduction in opportunities for war declarations, which by itself is sufficient to make Defensive Wars gameplay substantially different from Unrestricted Wars and Liberation Wars.
  • If the current inability to declare any war is essential for the design vision of Fanatic Pacifist, and/or Inward Perfection, then the restriction should be moved there so that it only affects the intended specific targets - rather than impacting every other would-be Defensive Wars empire.
  • (It can also be noted that the Pacifist faction dislikes war declarations, so the Pacifist subset of Defensive Wars empires would not be constant warmongers even if they somehow managed to scrape together sufficient casus belli for it. And even then, Pacifists can only use Selective Orbital Bombardment, so they would also lack the ability to abuse casus belli to bomb their neighbours back to the stone age.)
• Add a distinct effect of rivalries.
  • Each war philosophy should have its own unique effect of rivalries; Unrestricted Wars get the Animosity casus belli, Liberation Wars get the Ideology casus belli, and Defensive Wars could get something like a "Contain Aggression" casus belli?
    • A "Contain Aggression" casus belli victory outcome could perhaps make the target lose all their current wars of aggression (declared by them).
  • Alternatively, an ability to just join defenders who are attacked by the rival.
• Make territorial claims more costly against them.
  • This would make for a nice gradient between Defensive Wars and Unrestricted Wars, especially if claims against Unrestricted Wars would cost less.
  • It makes sense that Defensive Wars empires would be more focused on defending the legitimacy of their possessions. This would also mirror how Unyielding, the more defensive of the two military tradition trees, has a tradition that adds +25% Hostile claim influence cost.

With the suggestions above, the War Philosophy options could compare as below:

	Rivalry effects​	Territorial claims​	Everything else​
Unrestricted Wars	Animosity casus belli	Any time (i.e. peace and offensive wars), -25% Hostile claim Influence cost	No changes to other casus belli
Liberation Wars	Ideology casus belli	Only during defensive wars	No changes to other casus belli
Defensive Wars	Contain Aggression casus belli / can join defensive wars against rival	Only during defensive wars, +25% Hostile claim Influence cost	No changes to other casus belli

(Edit: if there absolutely needs to be a policy option for extreme Pacifists, "No War Declarations" could be added as a fourth War Philosophy option for them. But, as argued above, it would be less convoluted and more transparent to just make Fanatic Pacifist itself add that limitation directly. In my opinion, Stellaris does not need a War Philosophy "alternative" that exists solely to apply the no-war-declaration limitation to Fanatic Pacifist empires.)


What are your thoughts?
Does the Defensive Wars policy need to be changed?
Would changes like this be an improvement of the War Philosophy policy?
Are the suggestions sufficiently balanced and simple?
Are there better alternatives?

 

[Masked Ermine]

I do find some frustration in the fact that, despite having say trade or research or other pacts with some neighbors I cannot directly intervene in a war wherein they are the attacked party, without magicking up a cassius bellae against the aggressor. Before someone states that that would make 'all' pacts defense pacts, I would say no, I think there needs to be a special cassius bellae for 'allies in need'. IE if you are have a specific trust level/relationship level, and have research, commerce or migration pacts with said empire, if said empire gets attacked it should give you a cassius bellae to 'enter the war' with the afflicted empire as an ally, and that would mean even getting to war empires you otherwise have non-aggression status with if they 'act as an ugly aggressor'. It would ignore any claims you would have against the aggressor, it would only stretch to enforcing the claims of the aggressed power...and if you win it would make all pacts you have with said power be free for 10 years, and maybe give you some boost in galactic community standings. I think though if you lose, there should be penalties, possibly akin to a humiliation war goal. Maybe force you to drop all relationships with the defeated ally for 5-10 years.

Would this devalue defense pacts, probably. But I think defense pacts would represent the next level above the 'trade pacts' in that you are compelled to join said war. Whereas with the trade pacts, you can choose to ignore it, and can enter at any point, if you so choose. I think then that Guarantee Independence should then be far more specialized to being just about engaging in subservience wars. Also unlike defensive wars, these optional protection wars would be governed by any peace deal ceasefires...IE a canny empire may declare a short war with you white peace and then make war on their real target if they believe you'll step in to help them.

It would of course require the AI to be recalculated on how it determines to make war. Probably requiring it to be a bit more....willing to make war since I can see the above turning the AI into milquetoast do nothings.....

Additionally, there should be a 'freedom' cassius bellae. For those that support the independence of vassal states. IE if you think you are strong enough to free the vassal state you should be able to fight their overlord, with the victory condition being the release of the vassal state. Maybe have it be a 'Fanatical Egalitarian' special cassius bellae. Because there is nothing more frustrating than waiting for a vassal state to decide it wants freedom. I also believe that Fanatic egalitarians should not have the ability to make vassals by war....

 

[Losttruppen]

Additionally, there should be a 'freedom' cassius bellae. For those that support the independence of vassal states. IE if you think you are strong enough to free the vassal state you should be able to fight their overlord, with the victory condition being the release of the vassal state. Maybe have it be a 'Fanatical Egalitarian' special cassius bellae. Because there is nothing more frustrating than waiting for a vassal state to decide it wants freedom.

This happens when you have another Empire's Vassal Declare Secret Fealty to you: you get the Allegiance War option which swaps you to being the Vassal's new Overlord if you win; you can then free them.

 

[Masked Ermine]

This happens when you have another Empire's Vassal Declare Secret Fealty to you: you get the Allegiance War option which swaps you to being the Vassal's new Overlord if you win; you can then free them.

Yes, but it's not the same, and you have to get the vassal to submit to a secret fealty.

My suggestion is to get the vassal's choice completely out of it. Make it very much a 'I don't like vassals, I will free them all...period'. IE I don't want them to become my vassal.

 

[RoverStorm]

Personally I think warfare entirely needs to be revisited and overhauled.

War exhaustion I have talked at length about how absolutely awful of a mechanic it is. But the long and short is that it is a band-aid solution to an ancient problem with the AI never ending wars, despite having absolutely massive balance issues (such as making your opponent hit max war exhaustion, doing absolutely nothing for 2 years, and then jump driving nearly every system they own with 2 ships apiece and then forcing them to accept the "new borders" for the duration of the truce) as well as absolutely massive thematic/roleplay/fantasy issues, where empire that by their description are fully run by fanatics (or just gestalts) can be forced to peace out extremely easily in circumstances that make no sense.

The casus belli system is also antiquated. We cannot wage war for more than one reason. This is a game mechanic shared almost entirely with Crusader Kings, a game that has entire governments that ignore the concept of "peace" and will happily cross borders while "at peace" to pillage and loot your territory. EU4 has you select one casus belli but then gives you all (or most) of your "casus belli" wargoals as options for any war resolution. Same with HOI4. Vic3 lets you combine any casus belli you want at the start.

Stellaris should have much more complicated and diverse types of wars and peaces.

The war system also doesn't allow interventions, as mentioned. There isn't really any "secret volunteer" system either. Mercenary Enclaves can be hired by either side (including pre-emptively), so that's not a reliable method to help one particular empire.

I think "Tactical Algorithms" civic, exclusively for Machine Gestalts, is literally the closest you get to "directly" helping another empire in a conflict without being called into that war or just dumping alloys on them (or food for bioships now?).

I don't need to explain that ground combat is long overdue a redesign from the very foundation.

Mercenary Enclaves are also an incredibly cool concept that I don't use because of how absolutely awfully they are implemented. Once in an MP game I made the mistake of hiring another player's Mercenary Enclave's fleet, only to discover the fleet were literally corvettes with nothing but empty slots and T1 core modules. Most the time the fleets aren't even available, and the second I hire them they get recalled, and if I want to hire my own mercenary enclave they usually end up with frustratingly out of date equipment even though I just updated it.

Mercenary Enclaves we should really have more control over. If my empire (and therefore the Enclave) has special tech that gives 100% shield hardening from modules, then I should be able to design ships that take full advantage of this and order the Enclave to use those.

As OP mentioned, there's also an imbalance with War policies, but by this point so many things need changing that how policies are reworked would depend on how the rest is fixed.

 

[Masked Ermine]

Personally I think warfare entirely needs to be revisited and overhauled.

War exhaustion I have talked at length about how absolutely awful of a mechanic it is. But the long and short is that it is a band-aid solution to an ancient problem with the AI never ending wars, despite having absolutely massive balance issues (such as making your opponent hit max war exhaustion, doing absolutely nothing for 2 years, and then jump driving nearly every system they own with 2 ships apiece and then forcing them to accept the "new borders" for the duration of the truce) as well as absolutely massive thematic/roleplay/fantasy issues, where empire that by their description are fully run by fanatics (or just gestalts) can be forced to peace out extremely easily in circumstances that make no sense.

The casus belli system is also antiquated. We cannot wage war for more than one reason. This is a game mechanic shared almost entirely with Crusader Kings, a game that has entire governments that ignore the concept of "peace" and will happily cross borders while "at peace" to pillage and loot your territory. EU4 has you select one casus belli but then gives you all (or most) of your "casus belli" wargoals as options for any war resolution. Same with HOI4. Vic3 lets you combine any casus belli you want at the start.

Stellaris should have much more complicated and diverse types of wars and peaces.

The war system also doesn't allow interventions, as mentioned. There isn't really any "secret volunteer" system either. Mercenary Enclaves can be hired by either side (including pre-emptively), so that's not a reliable method to help one particular empire.

I think "Tactical Algorithms" civic, exclusively for Machine Gestalts, is literally the closest you get to "directly" helping another empire in a conflict without being called into that war or just dumping alloys on them (or food for bioships now?).

I don't need to explain that ground combat is long overdue a redesign from the very foundation.

Mercenary Enclaves are also an incredibly cool concept that I don't use because of how absolutely awfully they are implemented. Once in an MP game I made the mistake of hiring another player's Mercenary Enclave's fleet, only to discover the fleet were literally corvettes with nothing but empty slots and T1 core modules. Most the time the fleets aren't even available, and the second I hire them they get recalled, and if I want to hire my own mercenary enclave they usually end up with frustratingly out of date equipment even though I just updated it.

Mercenary Enclaves we should really have more control over. If my empire (and therefore the Enclave) has special tech that gives 100% shield hardening from modules, then I should be able to design ships that take full advantage of this and order the Enclave to use those.

As OP mentioned, there's also an imbalance with War policies, but by this point so many things need changing that how policies are reworked would depend on how the rest is fixed.

Mercenary enclaves are worse in single player because the AI dumps their military into them, instantly calculates that it is pathetic to everyone surrounding them and then that usually factors into them either getting pounced on by empires that should be equivalent to them (if you look at their enclaves' fleets) and getting carved up or demanding to be a vassal to someone else.

AI should not have access to mercenary enclaves. Period.

 

[RoverStorm]

AI should not have access to mercenary enclaves. Period.

I'd rather rework enclaves entirely, TBH.

I don't tend to like the idea of "this is a special mechanic JUST for players "

If the AI can't manage a mechanic, and players use it for anything except the purpose it was added, then it should be reworked.

 

[Masked Ermine]

I'd rather rework enclaves entirely, TBH.

I don't tend to like the idea of "this is a special mechanic JUST for players "

If the AI can't manage a mechanic, and players use it for anything except the purpose it was added, then it should be reworked.

Frankly I think it shouldn't exist to begin with. We already had mercenaries in the form of the various broken, wildling marauders. What needed to happen there is their pathing, should've been fixed so they wouldn't all be broken about 30 years into the game (don't know why they couldn't have been given like the mining drone/crystal expansionist vessel style of thing that makes them neutral to everything until they reached their destination where they become hostile to the target government). If anything I'd have reworked the marauders so that you could you know, target their attacks. If you pay them to attack a rival or someone it should give you like a marauder lure for you to put on the map; and the ships would have to go there and once they've neutralized everything in that system then do their 'closest planet to me' schtick. Because when they work, and you get lucky they are hell of a lot of fun to play with...made a lot of wars doable by first hitting the enemy with marauder raids....

To me the mercenary guilds are just 'We have marauders at home'....

 

[Foxosaur]

You make some great ideas about this, Tannhauser, like previous.

I love the idea of allowing them to join a defensive war more easily.


You would be giving up progressive border wars for improved defensive capabilities for your friends and likewise not seeking to impose ideology either without needing a defensive pact. I'm not sure about it being limited to rivals and I guess my reason is, as a solo player, I'm not always sure who my fellow AI friends aren't getting along with and maybe if that was more empthaised it would work. If it did, I think yes it would be cool.


The idea of Contain Aggression, a separate war that you use in devotion for your friends could be instrumental and you would be a form of interventionist.


For me, someone that plays regular Pacifist 90%+ of the time, I think it would add quite a lot to my games and make me switch to Fanatic Pacifism more regularly ( or at least, change my war policy. My blooms of Gaea would finally be more like Groot and guarding my friends a bit more actively ).

No longer would defensive policies be bland but empathize a different way of playing the game



Its a big plus one from me, would be my jam for sure.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

I'm not always sure who my fellow AI friends aren't getting along with and maybe if that was more empthaised it would work. If it did, I think yes it would be cool.

I figured that the "Contain Aggression" casus belli could be used in tandem with Guarantee Independence and Defensive Pact. The latter options are for when you want to protect specific friends, while "Contain Aggression" would be a slightly more aggressive alternative for when you want to pacify someone specific and make them learn of your peaceful ways, by force (or at least, threats of forceful response to any act of aggression).

 

[Foxosaur]

I figured that the "Contain Aggression" casus belli could be used in tandem with Guarantee Independence and Defensive Pact. The latter options are for when you want to protect specific friends, while "Contain Aggression" would be a slightly more aggressive alternative for when you want to pacify someone specific and make them learn of your peaceful ways, by force (or at least, threats of forceful response to any act of aggression).

Yep, love it.

Ps you get double love for a) linking Futurama and b) which even has ppl referencing Stellaris in the comments! Haha ^^

Anyway, it is a bit sad that Defensive wars policy is so devoid of love in general. I hope that changes sometime.

 

[user1221]

It’s clear that Liberation Wars and Defensive Wars are underperforming in terms of gameplay mechanics. Impose Ideology only changes the target empire’s government type, but it doesn’t affect the population’s ethos, meaning the newly installed regime often doesn’t last long.

I agree with the idea of giving Unrestricted Wars some kind of influence-based advantage. Personally, since I like minimizing my empire’s borders, I think Liberation Wars should be allowed to use Conquer-type war goals but at the cost of increased influence penalties. Also, planets liberated through Impose Ideology wars should receive some sort of ethics shift bonus—ideologies deserve that kind of payoff.

Defensive Wars are trickier. Their identity lies in refusing war, which is fine thematically—but playing a war-averse empire without any military engagement is just dull.
My suggestion: let such empires wage war through Council Agendas. Since the Council system already provides major bonuses to the empire, it would make sense to treat war as a kind of high-cost strategic investment for pacifist governments.

What if we added a system where nearby threats or special events reduce the progress point cost for those agendas? It would make pacifist empires more reactive and dynamic, without losing their unique flavor.

+This was written using a translator, so please excuse any awkward phrasing.

 

[DarkHelmet110985]

Pacifist trades flexibility with respect to Offensive conflict for massive Economic buffs, some of which are hard to come by(-Empire Size from Pops). Pacifists, at least those who truly believe in it devoutly, believe War is never a good thing so that is why the Fanatic variant locks you to Defensive Wars only. They do not want to fight unless its the opposition that makes the first move. Think of it as USA during the 1930's when rumblings of another War started sweeping across Europe. It's partly why Inward Perfection requires the Pacifist Ethic. Another example is Duchess Santine of Mandalore from Star Wars. She led a Pacifist Government that stayed out of the Clone Wars by leading Independent Systems and hoped to stay out of the conflict given what years of constant warfare had done to her Homeworld.

I suppose if there was one thing Defensive Wars would permit is the ability to "Sell" or Trade Ships to other players akin to Lend Lease or simply providing Military Aid so that we don't have to fight if they defeat the threat for us.

TLDR: Pacifists aren't afraid to fight but they'd prefer it be a last resort.

 

[grommile]

I don't need to explain that ground combat is long overdue a redesign from the very foundation.

The only rework it's ever likely to get is "removal".

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Their identity lies in refusing war, which is fine thematically—but playing a war-averse empire without any military engagement is just dull.

Pacifist trades flexibility with respect to Offensive conflict for massive Economic buffs, some of which are hard to come by(-Empire Size from Pops).

What I am arguing is basically that Defensive Wars ≠ Pacifist, and that Defensive War's current restriction against using any of the remaining casus belli is both too harsh and inconsistent. Defensive Wars is not balanced when compared to the other two options, and nobody picks Defensive Wars voluntarily except for edge cases.

If the only role of Defensive Wars is to serve as a roundabout vector for making Pacifist ethics block declarations of war, it would be much more elegant to just make "cannot declare war" a part of the Fanatic Pacifist ethic (and let the moderate Pacifist ethic enjoy the current -30 faction approval from declarations of war). Stellaris gameplay could easily be made a richer experience if Defensive Wars was still available for everyone else, without the blockage against declaring war but instead with a specialisation towards defensive wars.

If there absolutely needs to be a policy option for extreme pacifism, "No Wars" (or "No War Declarations") could be added as a fourth option. But, as noted above, it is a rather convoluted way to prevent Fanatic Pacifist from declaring war - that limitation could just be added directly by the ethic.