If anyone is listening: please can we have a Casus Belli System!

[Lord Mandelson]

For those unversed in military history (or who have not played Europa Universalis! ) A "Casus Belli" is a "just reason for going to war".

For example, if you are playing as faction x and faction y invades, you have a Casus Belli against them.

If it's the other way around, they have a Casus Belli against you.

Other situations can get more complex: alliances, harassment of trade routes, threatening behaviour of "parking" armies on borders, all this should contribute to "Casus Belli". Admittedly, it's really a game too late (Empire should have had it), but it's a feature the TW series is sorely missing.

At the moment, the AI has no way to tell an unjust war from a just war. It attacks because the binary coding that controls it tells it that it is expedient to do so, with damn all thought for repercussion. If a country attacks another with a just cause, it's allies should help and it's enemies fail to help. Right now, countries solely fight based on a toss-of-the-coin about whether they can win. In real life, wars DO NOT just start because one country thinks it can get away with annexing part of another.

So, at the risk of sounding like the usual "make TW EU" suspects, should the "just war" or "Casus Belli" system make it into Shogun, and indeed the widers series?

[Kuhndog]

For those unversed in military history (or who have not played Europa Universalis! ) A "Casus Belli" is a "just reason for going to war".

For example, if you are playing as faction x and faction y invades, you have a Casus Belli against them.

If it's the other way around, they have a Casus Belli against you.

Other situations can get more complex: alliances, harassment of trade routes, threatening behaviour of "parking" armies on borders, all this should contribute to "Casus Belli". Admittedly, it's really a game too late (Empire should have had it), but it's a feature the TW series is sorely missing.

At the moment, the AI has no way to tell an unjust war from a just war. It attacks because the binary coding that controls it tells it that it is expedient to do so, with damn all thought for repercussion. If a country attacks another with a just cause, it's allies should help and it's enemies fail to help. Right now, countries solely fight based on a toss-of-the-coin about whether they can win. In real life, wars DO NOT just start because one country thinks it can get away with annexing part of another.

So, at the risk of sounding like the usual "make TW EU" suspects, should the "just war" or "Casus Belli" system make it into Shogun, and indeed the widers series?

I am sure there are several instances where one country invaded another for the sole reason of power.

But you are right and this should already be a feature.

[Maizel]

Just war is okay by me. The casus bellii system just seems superficial. It will be the same thing a sjust war, only you get a pop up box saying why you just got declared war upon.


In my opinion it's fine how it is now. They just need to get the AI to act and react reasonably.

[GroupofSpearmen]

Well it's in Japan and the only reason they had to fight was to unite the entire Island, a Casus Belli system would be worthless, maybe in the next TW game.

[Lord Mandelson]

Just war is okay by me. The casus bellii system just seems superficial. It will be the same thing a sjust war, only you get a pop up box saying why you just got declared war upon.


In my opinion it's fine how it is now. They just need to get the AI to act and react reasonably.

Just war is Casus Belli. They mean the same thing. Casus Belli is latin for "Justification for acts of War"

My point is that currently the game does not know the difference between a provoked invasion due to years of tension build-up/slights and an opportunistic land-grab.

[Maizel]

Just war is Casus Belli. They mean the same thing. Casus Belli is latin for "Justification for acts of War"

My point is that currently the game does not know the difference between a provoked invasion due to years of tension build-up/slights and an opportunistic land-grab.

I know what Casus Belli means.


The problem isn;t the system. The ETW system does calculate tensions such ass religion, shared enemies/allies. trade, size of your faction or government type. These things come tot a (possibly negative) total, and that gets added to your relations figure every turn.

I'm sure the AI calculates in some way why it wants war, based on those things. The thing that just annoys me is that ot doesn't make sense most of the time.

[Lord Mandelson]

I know what Casus Belli means.

Just war is okay by me. The casus bellii system just seems superficial.

I daresay you do know what Casus Belli is. However, you seem to imply in your initial response that it is different to Just War. Which it isn't. I merely sought clarification

The problem isn;t the system. The ETW system does calculate tensions such ass religion, shared enemies/allies. trade, size of your faction or government type. These things come tot a (possibly negative) total, and that gets added to your relations figure every turn.

I'm sure the AI calculates in some way why it wants war, based on those things. The thing that just annoys me is that ot doesn't make sense most of the time.

Relations are not the same as CB. America hated Iraq. That did not make the invasion legitimate. There were, of course, other reasons for that invasion. But TW does not simulate these, either.

If an AI nation invades you, there should be a reason for it. Can you honestly say that is the case in Empire or any other TW game? It's always seemed totally random to me. There seems little if any correlation between relations and invasion. More often than not it's because you own one of the AI's victory condition provinces.

[Tim_Ward]

As someone already said, what you propose makes sense for other Total War games, but Shogun 2 depicts a period of civil war. These are not rival states fighting, but rival dynastic families living under a feudal system in a culture obsessed with "honour". The rules aren't quite the same.

I don't know enough about Japanese history to know what triggered the various dynastic wars of the period.

I was thinking something like Solium Infernum would be appropriate, where you can't just start a war because you feel like it you have to manufacture an excuse, but I have no idea if that is historically authentic. For I all know the daimyo just started a war without any pretense that it was for anything other than naked self-interest.

[Lord Mandelson]

As someone already said, what you propose makes sense for other Total War games, but Shogun 2 depicts a period of civil war. These are not rival states fighting, but rival dynastic families living under a feudal system in a culture obsessed with "honour". The rules aren't quite the same.

I don't know enough about Japanese history to know what triggered the various dynastic wars of the period.

I was thinking something like Solium Infernum would be appropriate, where you can't just start a war because you feel like it you have to manufacture an excuse, but I have no idea if that is historically authentic. For I all know the daimyo just started a war without any pretense that it was for anything other than naked self-interest.

Of course, you are correct. In fact, I think I may have mused on this in the first post, that it might be of more interest to the wider franchise.

However, I must confess even in the wars of Japan, there must be some pretext for attack, surely? Or at the very least, if the attack is purely for self interest, that should be apparent.

Attacks in previous TW games had no rhyme or reason. How many times have you, the most powerful country in the world, been attacked by someone like Courland, or Westphalia? You long to ask what the hell their government was thinking!

For me, it lets the whole campaign game down. One of the few EU features that could do with a direct lift (although it's badly implemented in EU too).

[Maizel]

I daresay you do know what Casus Belli is. However, you seem to imply in your initial response that it is different to Just War. Which it isn't. I merely sought clarification




Relations are not the same as CB. America hated Iraq. That did not make the invasion legitimate. There were, of course, other reasons for that invasion. But TW does not simulate these, either.

If an AI nation invades you, there should be a reason for it. Can you honestly say that is the case in Empire or any other TW game? It's always seemed totally random to me. There seems little if any correlation between relations and invasion. More often than not it's because you own one of the AI's victory condition provinces.

It's not clear as glass. But you usually can deduct why they would declare war on you, spreading the faith, checking nations expansionistic tendencies, checking republicanism, or whatever.

I would definitely like to knów why a nation would declare war on me. But they don;t have to rewrite the entire system for that. I would like it to make a bit more sense, though.


Honestly, I think what you suggest is fine. But the AI, as it is now would probably mess that up as well, unless you want to hardcode conditions before they can start a war.

[Lord Mandelson]

It's not clear as glass. But you usually can deduct why they would declare war on you, spreading the fate, checking nations expansionistic tendencies, checking republicanism, or whatever.

I would definitely like to knów why a nation would declare war on me. But they don;t have to rewrite the entire system for that. I would like it to make a bit more sense, though.

Don't misunderstand me, nothing major is required. How major are any of the EU systems? All it takes is a system that, as you say, actually works, with attacks that are actually provoked/in national interest, rather than random attacks to act as a vehicle for the player's wars.

Perhaps I have been too narrow-minded in referencing EU's CB system. A simple reform of the current system is at least something.

[Nack]

This would be nice only if it is used to improve how the AI handles war declarations. Also, the penalties shouldn't be too harsh on the player; remember Total War is that... total war, basically just attack whoever you want.

[Tim_Ward]

Of course, you are correct. In fact, I think I may have mused on this in the first post, that it might be of more interest to the wider franchise.

However, I must confess even in the wars of Japan, there must be some pretext for attack, surely? Or at the very least, if the attack is purely for self interest, that should be apparent.

Attacks in previous TW games had no rhyme or reason. How many times have you, the most powerful country in the world, been attacked by someone like Courland, or Westphalia? You long to ask what the hell their government was thinking!

For me, it lets the whole campaign game down. One of the few EU features that could do with a direct lift (although it's badly implemented in EU too).

I definitely agree with that. The only thing stopping me from making a thread about how to overhaul diplomacy for the next game was knowing next to all about the period in question, so it's hard to come up with something appropriate. Most of my knowledge of the period comes from playing Shogun> enough said.

One thing that is clear is that the current system, where you have a list of options, you select one to make a proposal, which is then refused and two turns later the AI declares war for no evidence reason has to be scraped, because it's ludicrously crap. Diplomacy must become much more structured. There should be rules about when stuff happens, and these rules should be spelled out and clear to the player. This makes it easier for the AI to make (semi) intelligent choices, make it clear to the player why what just happened happened.

There's rep in it for anyone who has a link to a good, brief history of the sengoku period (not just the wikipedia article) which will me figure the period out. I don't really understand it right now. For example, we know it was a period of civil war. Shogun would have had us believe that all the clans were involved in some Machiavellian long term strategy to ultimately become Shogun. Was this really the case, or where most of the wars local squabbles about local clan interests? To what extent did the Emperor have real (as opposed to nominal) influence over the clans and their actions? Was there a figurehead shogun through this period, or was the post empty? Did the final victor take the position of Shogun, or were they chosen?

[Kuhndog]

I definitely agree with that. The only thing stopping me from making a thread about how to overhaul diplomacy for the next game was knowing next to all about the period in question, so it's hard to come up with something appropriate. Most of my knowledge of the period comes from playing Shogun> enough said.

One thing that is clear is that the current system, where you have a list of options, you select one to make a proposal, which is then refused and two turns later the AI declares war for no evidence reason has to be scraped, because it's ludicrously crap. Diplomacy must become much more structured. There should be rules about when stuff happens, and these rules should be spelled out and clear to the player. This makes it easier for the AI to make (semi) intelligent choices, make it clear to the player why what just happened happened.

There's rep in it for anyone who has a link to a good, brief history of the sengoku period (not just the wikipedia article) which will me figure the period out. I don't really understand it right now. For example, we know it was a period of civil war. Shogun would have had us believe that all the clans were involved in some Machiavellian long term strategy to ultimately become Shogun. Was this really the case, or where most of the wars local squabbles about local clan interests? To what extent did the Emperor have real (as opposed to nominal) influence over the clans and their actions? Was there a figurehead shogun through this period, or was the post empty? Did the final victor take the position of Shogun, or were they chosen?

One thing they definitely need to change is have an allied nation from 1700 to 1780 then all off a sudden they declare war with you. That is what happened with me and Spain when I was playing with France on Empire.

[kentuckybandit]

I do agree that Casus Belli would have been excellent in Empire, or for ANY strategy game taking place after the Treaty of Westphalia. However this does not apply to the period in Shogun, because as already stated, it was a civil war amongst warring families. While a western nation state would have many factors to consider and mull over before invading its neighbor (or anyone) the families depicted in Shogun had only one goal in mind; unifying Japan. These daimyo would attack any family when the time was right (knowing they could win).
The 2 factors of A) Thinking you can win and B)is this other family better serving my ambition as an ally or not for the time being, are not enough to create an overhauled AI aggression system in the vain of CB. This is why original Shogun was so epic and simple and great. The simplistic nature of war for only one goal lent itself well to a limited diplomacy, 2d gameboard setup.

I will use this post to once again shamelessly state that I am peeing all over myself in anticipation for this game. Original Shogun was what got me into computer gaming as a kid.

[Lord Mandelson]

I do agree that Casus Belli would have been excellent in Empire, or for ANY strategy game taking place after the Treaty of Westphalia. However this does not apply to the period in Shogun, because as already stated, it was a civil war amongst warring families. While a western nation state would have many factors to consider and mull over before invading its neighbor (or anyone) the families depicted in Shogun had only one goal in mind; unifying Japan. These daimyo would attack any family when the time was right (knowing they could win).
The 2 factors of A) Thinking you can win and B)is this other family better serving my ambition as an ally or not for the time being, are not enough to create an overhauled AI aggression system in the vain of CB. This is why original Shogun was so epic and simple and great. The simplistic nature of war for only one goal lent itself well to a limited diplomacy, 2d gameboard setup.

I will use this post to once again shamelessly state that I am peeing all over myself in anticipation for this game. Original Shogun was what got me into computer gaming as a kid.

Great to see someone not fashioned in the "it's not Rome, therefore I shall sulk..." mould!