War Weariness

The Galaxy Lives On! Distant Worlds, the critically acclaimed 4X space strategy game is back with a brand new 64-bit engine, 3D graphics and a polished interface to begin an epic new Distant Worlds series with Distant Worlds 2. Distant Worlds 2 is a vast, pausable real-time 4X space strategy game. Experience the full depth and detail of turn-based strategy, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game.

Moderator: MOD_DW2

Post Reply
UsF
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:23 am

War Weariness

Post by UsF »

Since war weariness is a system still in development, I was thinking about discussing this aspect.

War weariness in game should not be a global empire encompassing effect only. It should be more granular.
Worlds/Systems directly affected by combat should receive war weariness effects, if losses are taken or the time at war is long. Worlds or systems in close proximity to the conflict should receive war weariness penalties, if the flow of information in the government form permits the news reaching the population. Global war weariness also would depend on information spreading and the form of government or policies could regulate and keep the spread of war weariness to more central systems under control.

The effect of war weariness would become less of a uniform, overall empire affecting statistic and more of a situation that could spread in your empire, based on policies you have taken, as well as the progress of your conflict. A system in proximity to the ongoing war efforts that has lots of defensive efforts, might be subject to less harsh war weariness penalties. Also an empire with no free flow of unfiltered information might have the added benefit of a reduction in war weariness propagation.
StormingKiwi
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:35 am

RE: War Weariness

Post by StormingKiwi »

I think War Weariness is a bad mechanic.

What problem is it trying to solve?

If the aim is to make the player spend more time at Peace, then make peacetime more rewarding and engaging.

As it is, in this genre, the main thing to do is wage war, the main way to win is to wage war, so punishing the player for playing the game makes zero sense.

Hanekem
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 6:45 pm

RE: War Weariness

Post by Hanekem »

ORIGINAL: StormingKiwi

I think War Weariness is a bad mechanic.

What problem is it trying to solve?

If the aim is to make the player spend more time at Peace, then make peacetime more rewarding and engaging.

As it is, in this genre, the main thing to do is wage war, the main way to win is to wage war, so punishing the player for playing the game makes zero sense.


Because War is expensive in men and materiel and also in other factors, with the civilian economy and well being suffering from it.
The longer a war goes on, the worse it could be

Admittedly, this is only true for a total war, as opposed to flash points or distant, low intensity, wars, so the war weariness should account for those factors.
But it is always going to suck, it's always going to imply restrictions and the like that the civilians aren't going to like, long term.
Jorgen_CAB
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:53 pm

RE: War Weariness

Post by Jorgen_CAB »

ORIGINAL: StormingKiwi

I think War Weariness is a bad mechanic.

What problem is it trying to solve?

If the aim is to make the player spend more time at Peace, then make peacetime more rewarding and engaging.

As it is, in this genre, the main thing to do is wage war, the main way to win is to wage war, so punishing the player for playing the game makes zero sense.


This is a very backward way of thinking and it is not even true. I generally stay away from wars in these kind of games and make allies to become strong rather then just conquer everything. War is not what Distant Worlds is to me at all... it is more an economic and logistical simulator in my opinion.

With that in mind then war should be quite detrimental to the economy so other empires or faction not in war probably will come out stronger as they stay out of it.

In fact... conducting wars are way to efficient in most strategy game than what they should be long term most of the time.

War weariness is a good simulation of internal political pressures to end wars that is more than just numbers and economy but also about peoples lives and wants. People in general are not interested in more territory, they are more concerned about their own well being and lives. Players are not really concerned about the well being of the "people" living in their empires so abstract game mechanics have to do it for them.

In my opinion fun is a pretty relative term... I like it when a game simulate other things than just economy and raw numbers as life, cultures and social struggles are about so much more. Conflict is not always about resources and territory either which is the only thing most players are interested in. Conquer territory and especially integrating them in games like these usually are way too easy... some cultures should be so different that it would be nearly impossible to do it without full genocide and total destruction of whatever resources you were after from the start.

In the modern world wars have become so destructive that we can't afford them in more than very limited ways anymore. In the past wars were not that destructive but today they are. So destructive in fact that they simply are not worth considering for economic gains anymore. In the future we should assume they would be even more destructive... this is just food for thought and not relevant to a computer game.
StormingKiwi
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:35 am

RE: War Weariness

Post by StormingKiwi »

ORIGINAL: Hanekem

Because War is expensive in men and materiel and also in other factors, with the civilian economy and well being suffering from it.
The longer a war goes on, the worse it could be

Admittedly, this is only true for a total war, as opposed to flash points or distant, low intensity, wars, so the war weariness should account for those factors.
But it is always going to suck, it's always going to imply restrictions and the like that the civilians aren't going to like, long term.
Yes that's the lore/rationale/fluff behind the mechanic, but what gameplay problem is it trying to solve?

In these games, war is often worth the investment. So why punish the player for being at war when other mechanics inherently reward such a playstyle? That's the point I'm making.
ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB
This is a very backward way of thinking and it is not even true. I generally stay away from wars in these kind of games and make allies to become strong rather then just conquer everything. War is not what Distant Worlds is to me at all... it is more an economic and logistical simulator in my opinion.

With that in mind then war should be quite detrimental to the economy so other empires or faction not in war probably will come out stronger as they stay out of it.

In fact... conducting wars are way to efficient in most strategy game than what they should be long term most of the time.

War weariness is a good simulation of internal political pressures to end wars that is more than just numbers and economy but also about peoples lives and wants. People in general are not interested in more territory, they are more concerned about their own well being and lives. Players are not really concerned about the well being of the "people" living in their empires so abstract game mechanics have to do it for them.

In my opinion fun is a pretty relative term... I like it when a game simulate other things than just economy and raw numbers as life, cultures and social struggles are about so much more. Conflict is not always about resources and territory either which is the only thing most players are interested in. Conquer territory and especially integrating them in games like these usually are way too easy... some cultures should be so different that it would be nearly impossible to do it without full genocide and total destruction of whatever resources you were after from the start.

In the modern world wars have become so destructive that we can't afford them in more than very limited ways anymore. In the past wars were not that destructive but today they are. So destructive in fact that they simply are not worth considering for economic gains anymore. In the future we should assume they would be even more destructive... this is just food for thought and not relevant to a computer game.
More power to you, but the point stands. If you had a rival in DW:U, the most effective way of dealing with that rival is to poke them with a sharp pointed stick, because there are few ways that a rival can be competitively dealt with. War is disproportionately more powerful than peace for reducing the influence and power of rivals and competitors in this game.

I'm not saying I spend the whole time at war, but given that the game is designed around conflict, it makes no sense to punish the player for engaging in those conflicts.
Jorgen_CAB
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:53 pm

RE: War Weariness

Post by Jorgen_CAB »

ORIGINAL: StormingKiwi
I'm not saying I spend the whole time at war, but given that the game is designed around conflict, it makes no sense to punish the player for engaging in those conflicts.

In my opinion it does make sense... as that provide multiple options for when and how you engage in a conflict and a measure of uncertainty as to how it can play out.

The pure fact that most games of this nature have issues with the snowball effect and don't punish rapid expansion (especially through conflict) with "realistic" internal stability is a problem.

In my opinion conflict over resources is fine, but most wars should not be or turn into total war which it often tend to do in most strategy games. Conflict should be about more just land grabs. There should be many types of conflicts from low intensity war to cold wars or cultural wars. Sometimes great empires simply implode from within through cultural revolutions... this might seem unfun for some, but in my opinion conflict is conflict no matter if it is by the point of a laser cannon or social unrest.
User avatar
Key1001
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:05 am

RE: War Weariness

Post by Key1001 »

In physical side of things, war weariness would already be represented by how much resources and ships you'd lose during the war. I don't think we need additional game mechanic for that.

However, as many pointed out, the empire would also be politically worn out if war is prolonged. Such mechanic would better fit in internal empire management such as population and just overall stability.

User avatar
U235
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun May 07, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Chesapeake, Virginia USA

RE: War Weariness

Post by U235 »

Well, we do have a real world example of "War Weariness". How many people today even realize we are/were at war in the Middle East for 18 years? I'll tell you, few, unless one had family or loved ones over there. Most people stateside just went about their business unaffected. Unless bombs are dropping on their heads most don't even give it a second thought. Now, I suppose the developer could have a race of super sensitive beings that would tremble at the thought of conflict. Any takers to play such a race?
User avatar
ncc1701e
Posts: 7926
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:50 pm
Location: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards

RE: War Weariness

Post by ncc1701e »

What I like in DW1 is that you can win without doing lots of war (just destroy pirates).
I hope to see a dev diary explaining more this mechanism.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
skigrinder
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 1:23 pm

RE: War Weariness

Post by skigrinder »

I remember DW:U games where war weariness became a problem even when I was kicking butt.
Hope this has been mitigated.
Post Reply

Return to “Distant Worlds 2”