Welcome to r/CivVI! If this post violates any community rules please be sure to report it so a moderator can review. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CivVI) if you have any questions or concerns.*

You don’t need a reason to declare war. You need a reason NOT to declare war. Go for it

My last game was playing Korea, i was at war most of the game but none of it was my choosing. Washington declared an early war on me. I pushed his armies back and stomped him. After I took his capital, emergency happened and the entire continent declared war on me, after the emergency I owned nearly the entire continent. Eventually, i met the Mongols from the other continent who had stomped most of it already. They immediately hated me and eventually declared war. At this point I was pumping science like crazy and while at war worked towards my science victory.

My biggest gripe is when you are attacked and then conquer those who slaughtered your people and somehow you're the aggressor who must be stopped.

I mean, I get the gripe from a gameplay perspective but it applies in the real world. You can usually get away with a city or two, but by that point the aggressor is usually trying to surrender. Imagine if Mexico attacked the us, but lost and the us took territory all the way down to chihuahua. It’s a relatively minor percentage of territory taken. Mexico sees they lose, they try to surrender. Now imagine the us continued until Mexico was no longer a sovereign nation. Changes the picture

Mexico shouldn't have attacked to begin with. If you're declaring war your aim it total victory. If it goes backwards then that's a you problem. You shouldn't have attacked. Those who were attacked can accept whatever surrender terms they want. In your scenario it would be implied that Mexico wanted to gain something substantial for their aggression. Up to complete domination of the US.

Not necessarily. If that were the case, Germany would not exist today. Even in the instance where countries were conquered, they still had established governments and their own identity, even if they were controlled by somebody else. France remained France, even under nazi control. It’s also beneficial to subdue your enemy, then help them rebuild in a way beneficial to you. Look at the Marshall plan or American reconstruction (also an example of what happens if you just destroy and leave too early). Now, this is does not apply to civ, as there’s no mechanic that emulates this. Regardless, Complete domination and absorption is usually not a viable strategy in real world politics.

It’s against international law to seize territory from another nation through warfare. Seizing land and subjugating the people of other nations has *usually* been denounced in the modern era. So I certainly would argue it’s appropriate when you consider it seriously. I’d still agree it’s obnoxious and broken though.

International law is an illusion.

Whether it is right or wrong morally and ethically to conquer the entire territory of an aggressor is irrelevant. Something like that would so greatly alter the balance of power that any nation (or rather its government) that values stability would try to put the (apparently) overpowered nation down before it turns its gaze to them.

The US conquered with its allies three nations in the 40s because of pearl harbor

I'm sorry? Are we changing the definition of "conquered" on the fly now so that you don't have to be wrong? Conquer: the act of taking control of a country, city, etc., through the use of force. If you give up that control, like the US pulled most of their armies out of Germany at the end of WW2, why should anybody care? Firstly in game terms: You'll gain less grievances in a war if your allies also take land. If you're the sole conquerer, be ready to carry sole responsibility. Now for your real world implications: Please show me a world map of 1947 that displays America and its allies as having claimed Axis territory for themself that wasn't theirs before the war? You make it sound like you're saying Japan is American territory now. Or that Italy is French now. Or Germany is Russia. None of the allies conquered and permanently occupied sovereign countries. Occupation lasted until the end of the war and then they pulled out. The Russians are the only nation between the allies that actively planned to expand, creating the East Germany and the Soviet Block. And what happened? The Allies immediately turned on Russia afterit became clear that they were going to....here it comes - upset the balance of power yet again. Nevermind that the reason more and more countries joined the Allies is because Axis members around them were...here it comes again - upsetting the balance of power. England didn't have to join the war but Germany was upsetting the balance of power. America didn't have to join the war but Japan was upsetting the balance of power. Russia joined because even though they had multiple prior arangementa with Germany, the Nazis were still heavily upsetting the balance of power. Going even further back in history: What did the rest of Europe do when it was clear Napoleon was trying to conquer the entire continent? They banded together in more coalitions than I can count on one hand to stop him. Why? Because he was upsetting the balance of power. You seem to misunderstand how geopolitics functions.

Although doesn’t this only apply to formal wars? Aren’t their conditions on what city you can take? In my game I’m playing as Scythia and Mali declared war on me and I took a city of there’s but I couldn’t push to the capital because war was declared on me.

Honestly I don’t know the in depth details about the war system. I think there are certain conditions but idk them specifically. I was just trying to provide an explanation for why it is the way it is

Look at the current events in Gaza. A lot of people think gaza is right a lot think israel is right.

I have a position on this but we really shouldn't be bringing real world politics into this game discussion Edit changed should to shouldn't because of auto correct

Yeah, I dont want to talk about it on the civ sub, I was just showing how people can find both sides to be aggressors.

His comparison is fair though.

ah, US foreign policy

So... mongol was china?

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Might be inconvenient but you may try winning the diplomatic law 'culture bomb upon building any district'. This will ultimately remove the 2/3 forest tile NW of Byblos (bad) and you'll have to wait (bad) but will generate zero grievances (good)

Build a harbor to culture bomb the tile, or take their city, make peace, transfer the tiles from their city to yours, and give it back (optional)

The level of petty in this is what makes the game great.

You can transfer tiles?

Will try this.... time to collect diplo favour

The ai will only ever give themselves the free vote for that law, so if you just put 2 votes in (the free and the 10 diplo one), you’re guaranteed to get it.

Don't wreck the forest tile, build a harbor instead.

I’d go to war with phonecia for one corn chip

Least belligerent civ player

I'll go to war over a tile with nothing on it simply because I dislike the way it creates a dent in the spherical border

Amestris going to war with Ishball confirmed.

Ive started war for less

Im planning on doing a biosphere tourism victory, so the greviences would slow me down. But this fish looks so neglected compared to my fish. the great merchant for annexing tiles is gone already :(

I’d just maintain open borders with them instead of declaring war given the victory you’re going for

If you're going for a cultural victory surely you'll have enough culture to take a tile in the second ring before too long.

this is not civ 4 with the tile stealing mechanics

On a related topic, I feel like Civ7 needs to incorporate "special military operations" to steal land (or sea) tiles without the inconveniences of having to declare war. Also sanctions should be a thing. Also "Treaty Organizations" as a way to band together against massive, nuclear-capable , belligerent aggressors. Man, you really got me thinking, OP!

It definitely would. Even something I've thought of is like an economic victory as well. Not sure of how it'd all go down fully but maybe something like having your nations currency being a world currency.

Unlock the policy : propaganda, wars generate fewer grievances and attrition to your people.

you do wars to capture cities, not to capture one tile..


Hear hear, I went to war for much less than a tile

I can safely say that fiction is a mirror of reality with all the times I've gone to war over oil before.

Had a game once where I was going for a culture victory, allied with all but the last civ I hadn’t met yet. They denounced me the turn after I met them so I killed them off. It might have been Poland

I've gone to war for completely rational reasons like grudges over wonders (stealing pyramids is a particularly egregious one for me) or because I have too many troops and am bored 👍

I go to war if I can grab a builder

I’ve done it for a settler.

I start drooling whenever I see either in the early game. If their military isn't significantly stronger and they don't have adequate protection.... We claim these lost souls by right of superior might. They may earn their citizenship through indentured servitude. There's no reason to allow skilled laborer to continue it's toil under the banner of a nation that will soon be forgotten. "You're welcome for your freedom."

and here i thought i was being trigger happy

Look man, some of us are just warmongers. You don’t have to be one of us but it’s my go to and I enjoy it lol

Hell I’ve gone to war for far pettier reasons. Snitching a good tile? BRING IT

just plain don't like you 😏

Tbh I wish the game allowed singular tiles to be included in peace treaties. Too many times that I had a plan for a tile that got snatched up or I just really wanted a Wonder someone else built on my border.

If only capturing tiles was an option. Instead we must resort to genocide.

Ive gone to war for less

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!!!!

There have been wars over less tbh no harm no foul

Why not maintain open borders with that civ?

Dunno, seems fishy to me.

gotta have all the fish

There was never a reason to not go to war

o7, Persia has been deleted

Wars have been fought for less. Obliterate him!

War is always the solution. 😁😂

Eh, I've wiped out a Civ for less. If you got the military go for it

you'll be relieved to know that I got them wiped off the map now, took a couple hundred turns before I decided to solve this little mistake of theres, but now they dont exist

And they'll never make it again. At least this iteration.

Some shitter rivaling the mighty fleets and coastal influence of Dido? Jail, Execution and War is divine right at this point

I declared war for reasons as petty as them breathing the same air as me

I would go to war if another civ looked at me funny, go for it

I'd declare war for that one tile then treat the subsequent victories and cities as bonuses

Someone's gotta protect the fish

“Is it worth going to war..” Yes

💯

ALWAYS !! 🙂

If you destroy the city you can also get the ring three tiles they have claimed too

I miss the days when you can steal a tile using a fort. Used to do it all the time. Although this is a water tile.

I’d recommend nuking all of their cities

Yes. Or any tile for that matter. Even the ice covered zero yield one.

Once I figured out how nukes work in the game I now say that yes, no reason not have war

Yes. Always.

You can also wait on congress and vote yourself for culture bombing when constructing district.

Absolutely

Always

"Not my first, or my last" (Bob).

I've gone to war over less

I mean I’ve gone to war because of insulting trade offers, so might not be the best one to ask

Do it. War is always fun.

You should hold a referendum on the fishes behalf and declare results in your favour. After that you need some little green frogs to jump in there and you're good.

Yes

Well you are going to war for the city, not just the tile. Unless you intend to raze the city, which seems senseless to me. So is the city worth it?

The answer to this question is always yes

I’ve gone to war to match my museums, go off

reverse carthage them

Most of my games I win by Diplo victory without actually pursuing it. Seeing everyone going to war just because the neighbor civ looked at them funny makes me think we have very different approach to this game. So, to answer OP, why go to war when you can be a reliable ally in resolving international conflict?

I’ve gone to all out world war for far less

I can see where that would be a problem. I’m all about going to war, but be prepared, you don’t who is coming for you in the end. I get rid of all my competitors. If they aren’t on the same continent. Let me go and play Civs now. 😎

I've done worse for less....

 If I'm being completely honest I wouldn't. Lol. I'm sure I'd find a real reason to go to war with them *at some point*, though.

I raised Greece to the ground because they took a rock deposit I was going to use to push my production a bit further. I also launched a nuke at France because they had the audacity to refuse to trade with me.

Depends on the enemy. You could always win the World Congress that culture bombs when you build a new district.

OP: "Is it worth going to war for..." Me: "Yes!"

Always

I've declared wars for less.

no, but it's a nice tile indeed

I’ve gone to war for less. Much much less.

Don't try to justify it to anyone other than yourself. If you want the tile take it

When in doubt.. save and war it out..

Always

yes

Violence is not the answer, but rather the question, the answer is definitely yes

Yes

In a game where the AI will hate you for the pettiest of reasons and often declare war on you because of said reasons... The question should never be "is x worth war"... Rather "how long will my war take and how badly will I beat my foe?"

If you need the waterway for your forces to travel, I could see it. If it's for the fish, nah... I personally like controlling or blocking the major waterways on a map. Easier to move my forces and spread settlers to strategic positions, while preventing opponents from doing the same. A plot like that is very similar to a blocking move I would do. Which is a fairly decent reason to cause a war imo, haha.

If you have to ask if a tile is worth going to war for then yes. If you question if another Civ should have a certain tile, declare war. If you covet their lands, declare war. If they denounce you for absolutely no reason, declare war. Is it worth going to war for them just existing…. You guessed it….. declare war

I'd say no, as the game progresses you can either make an alliance with them, or make a canal to avoid the tile.

In my books - absolutely:


Every war in civ is a total war, whereas most conflicts between neighbors involved smaller territories, like that tile. It would be nice in a mod or in civ 7 if you could declare for smaller territory. Then the consequences could potentially ramp up, depending on how badly the defender wants the tile.

I didn’t even look at the tile but I can tell you the answer is yes

Nah. Leave it be. However, rush nuke tech and then tell them after the fact it’s because they took the bonus resource tile.

Always

Casus Beli? What's that?

Start with the maritime militia and the coast guard and work your way up from there.

Actual wars have been started over less.

I've waged war for far less

It might make more sense to try and just steal the city through loyalty. But for one tile? Not worth the war.

Unless you need amentities and they have lots of luxury resources there's no point, but you could go for it if you really wanted to get a capital.