What if the War Philosophy "Defensive Wars" was changed to "Restricted Wars"?

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Edit: following the discussion below, a new suggestion has been created in the Suggestions forum:
Benefits of changing "Defensive Wars" to "Restricted Wars"







It has been argued that one of the big problems with the War Philosophy "Defensive Wars" (and thereby for Fanatic Pacifist) is that it is too restrictive, for empire growth as well as gameplay enjoyment. Currently, it does not allow any declaration of war except, supposedly, independence wars against overlords. What if this was relaxed somewhat, to a position that was more restrictive than "Liberation Wars" but not ultraradically pacifist? When considering that the Militarist ethic's faction is the "Imperialist" faction, a War Philosophy only needs to be anti-imperialist to be an opposite of what the Militarist ethic desires.

This would presumably exclude the ability to make claims unless the empire is in a defensive war, as now.
It would also exclude ideological imperialism, i.e. no Ideology casus belli, since this alternative is supposed to be more restricted than that.
It should furthermore exclude the Subjugation, Imposed Inclusion, Hegemon, Imperial Crusade, and Colossus casus belli.

Beyond these, it gets trickier to determine which casus belli can be considered "imperialist", and which cannot.

• Conquer: for reconquests of lost territory, or for claims made during a previous defensive war?
• Counterattack: no effects beyond claims, but aimed at a non-community enemy at war with a community member.
• Humiliate: requires rivalry, can weaken or destabilize the other empire (and de-supremacist it), and grant your empire 100 Influence. Imperialistic if done by an aggressor.
• Imperial Rebuke: rivalry for the Galactic Emperor, same as Humiliate.
• Plunder: is not possible for Pacifist empires, but for other users of this policy it should probably still not be a valid casus belli.
• Expel Corporation: shutting down someone else's branch offices in your empire is a matter of independence, not imperialism. Should be ok?
• Seize Assets: this is tricky as it involves conquering something, but it involves neither territory nor pops, and corporate empires have no peaceful way of taking over branch offices.
• Take Galatron: not imperialistic, it's the Galatron.
• Bring Into Fold (Scion): this is also tricky, as it essentially is imperialism on your overlord's behalf.
• Council Seat: not imperialistic?
• Independence: is anti-imperialistic, and supposedly the only war declaration allowed by Defensive Wars.
• Leave Hegemony: is anti-imperialistic.
• Restore Community: is anti-imperialistic.
• Secret Fealty: the subject has actually asked you, so this should not be considered aggressive imperialism against your would-be subject?
• End Threat, Stop Colossus, Crisis War: may have imperialistic side effects, but the cause is officially good.

Thoughts on the possibility of replacing "Defensive Wars" with "Restricted Wars"?

 

[InvisibleBison]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Defensive Wars. It's only something that fanatic pacifists would use, and being a fanatic pacifist means that you think violence is never the right answer to a problem. If people want to use violence to solve their problems, they shouldn't play fanatic pacifists.

 

[Ethic3022]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Defensive Wars. It's only something that fanatic pacifists would use, and being a fanatic pacifist means that you think violence is never the right answer to a problem. If people want to use violence to solve their problems, they shouldn't play fanatic pacifists.

I agree with this except for: End Threat, and crisis. The game gives you those CBs to represent that they’re not just an imperialistic threat, but a threat to the existence of life, period. I think even the most die-hard pacifists might be willing to fight a threat like that once they’ve seen what they’re capable of. By them choosing to do nothing, they’re not only allowing more violence than they’re stopping by not intervening, but also allowing the worst kind of violence.

I’d wager they could reason that intervention might result in some violence now, but not intervening will result in a lot of violence later.

Maybe the colossus one as well if someone uses the weapon on a colonized planet. Not only would they get the opinion hit, but it would activate their CB

 

[Koopatin]

I agree with this except for: End Threat, and crisis. The game gives you those CBs to represent that they’re not just an imperialistic threat, but a threat to the existence of life, period. I think even the most die-hard pacifists might be willing to fight a threat like that once they’ve seen what they’re capable of. By them choosing to do nothing, they’re not only allowing more violence than they’re stopping by not intervening, but also allowing the worst kind of violence.

I’d wager they could reason that intervention might result in some violence now, but not intervening will result in a lot of violence later.

Maybe the colossus one as well if someone uses the weapon on a colonized planet. Not only would they get the opinion hit, but it would activate their CB

Nope. Fanatic pacifist are exactly that, the trope of a species/nation that is willing to let itself be slaughtered. it is better to be exterminated than to use violence. It's the trope they use for fanatic pacifism, and it is a real life expression of radical pacifism for some pacifists.

*edit* that said, of course those species would not even wage defensive wars.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Defensive Wars. It's only something that fanatic pacifists would use, and being a fanatic pacifist means that you think violence is never the right answer to a problem. If people want to use violence to solve their problems, they shouldn't play fanatic pacifists.

The "Defensive Wars" policy exists as a policy option for every ethic, not just the Fanatic Pacifist ethic. If it is essential that the Fanatic Pacifist ethic never ever whatsoever declares war, that could be handled as an additional diplomatic limitation that is a part of the Fanatic Pacifist ethic itself. That would be a cleaner design than making that aspect a separate policy that nobody else will ever choose voluntarily.

The game does currently lack a War Philosophy option for those that have no interest in conquest or ideological crusades, but would be willing to act proactively in situations where it is legitimate and necessary to do so in order to safeguard the security, independence, diplomatic standing or political influence of the state.

"Restricted Wars" could be a fourth War Philosophy, between Liberation Wars and Defensive Wars, but this would only make it more obvious that Defensive Wars only exists for the sake of the Fanatic Pacifist ethic and might as well just be part of it. Better then to have a policy option that other empires (and moderate Pacifist) could actually consider using, and give Fanatic Pacifist further restrictions that are appropriate for them. For instance, if Fanatic Pacifists were unable to declare rivalries, they could no longer get the Humiliation/Imperial Rebuke casus belli (this would not cause an Influence issue if Restricted Wars gets Influence from guaranteeing independence rather than declaring rivalries).

The tables below shows what the suggested casus belli possibilities would look like, with Fanatic Pacifist additionally disabling rivalries (on top of it already disabling the civic behind Plunder).

Subjugation / supremacy	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Subjugation	x	x
Imposed Inclusion	x	x
Bring Into Fold (Scion)	x	x
Hegemon	x	x
Imperial Crusade	x	x

Influencing target empire	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Ideology		x
Humiliate	x	x	x
Imperial Rebuke	x	x	x

Non-territorial seizures	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Plunder	x	x	x *
Seize Assets	x	x	x	maybe?
Take Galatron	x	x	x	maybe?
Council Seat	x	x	x	maybe?
Secret Fealty	x	x	x	maybe?

* the civic behind this casus belli requires Militarist ethics, and the Imperialist faction would be angry with this War Philosophy, making this is a fringe case

Territorial seizures	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Colossus	x	x
Conquer	x	x *	x **	x **
Counterattack	x	x *	x **	x **

* only defensive claims and gestalt claims
** only defensive claims

Freedom	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Expel Corporation	x	x	x	x
Independence	x	x	x	x
Leave Hegemony	x	x	x	x
Restore Community	x	x	x	x

Existential threats	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
End Threat	x	x	x	x
Stop Colossus	x	x	x	x
Crisis War *	x	x	x	x

* triggered by Galactic Community rather than normal declaration of war

This would leave Fanatic Pacifist with only freedom-, reconquest- and existential threat-types of casus belli, and massive faction disapproval if those are ever used aggressively, while the "Restricted Wars" policy would be more viable for the above described non-expansionist non-imperialists (primarily empires with the cooperative, mercantile or isolationist stances who are not Fanatic Pacifist).

 

[Ethic3022]

The "Defensive Wars" policy exists as a policy option for every ethic, not just the Fanatic Pacifist ethic. If it is essential that the Fanatic Pacifist ethic never ever whatsoever declares war, that could be handled as an additional diplomatic limitation that is a part of the Fanatic Pacifist ethic itself. That would be a cleaner design than making that aspect a separate policy that nobody else will ever choose voluntarily.

The game does currently lack a War Philosophy option for those that have no interest in conquest or ideological crusades, but would be willing to act proactively in situations where it is legitimate and necessary to do so in order to safeguard the security, independence, diplomatic standing or political influence of the state.

"Restricted Wars" could be a fourth War Philosophy, between Liberation Wars and Defensive Wars, but this would only make it more obvious that Defensive Wars only exists for the sake of the Fanatic Pacifist ethic and might as well just be part of it. Better then to have a policy option that other empires (and moderate Pacifist) could actually consider using, and give Fanatic Pacifist further restrictions that are appropriate for them. For instance, if Fanatic Pacifists were unable to declare rivalries, they could no longer get the Humiliation/Imperial Rebuke casus belli (this would not cause an Influence issue if Restricted Wars gets Influence from guaranteeing independence rather than declaring rivalries).

The tables below shows what the suggested casus belli possibilities would look like, with Fanatic Pacifist additionally disabling rivalries (on top of it already disabling the civic behind Plunder).

Subjugation / supremacy	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Subjugation	x	x
Imposed Inclusion	x	x
Bring Into Fold (Scion)	x	x
Hegemon	x	x
Imperial Crusade	x	x

Influencing target empire	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Ideology		x
Humiliate	x	x	x
Imperial Rebuke	x	x	x

Non-territorial seizures	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Plunder	x	x	x *
Seize Assets	x	x	x	maybe?
Take Galatron	x	x	x	maybe?
Council Seat	x	x	x	maybe?
Secret Fealty	x	x	x	maybe?

* the civic behind this casus belli requires Militarist ethics, and the Imperialist faction would be angry with this War Philosophy, making this is a fringe case

Territorial seizures	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Colossus	x	x
Conquer	x	x *	x **	x **
Counterattack ***	x	x *	x **	x **

* only defensive claims and gestalt claims
** only defensive claims
*** triggered by Galactic Community rather than normal declaration of war

Freedom	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Expel Corporation	x	x	x	x
Independence	x	x	x	x
Leave Hegemony	x	x	x	x
Restore Community	x	x	x	x

Existential threats	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
End Threat	x	x	x	x
Stop Colossus	x	x	x	x
Crisis War *	x	x	x	x

* triggered by Galactic Community rather than normal declaration of war

This would leave Fanatic Pacifist with only freedom-, reconquest- and existential threat-types of casus belli, and massive faction disapproval if those are ever used aggressively, while the "Restricted Wars" policy would be more viable for the above described non-expansionist non-imperialists (primarily empires with the cooperative, mercantile or isolationist stances who are not Fanatic Pacifist).

I think they should do something like:

1) Get rid of Liberation Wars policy. Unrestricted really should include it anyways. Unrestricted should mean your empire has no qualms about war. It’s just another tool for them to get what they want/need.

2) Change the middle policy to Restricted with some of the changes you’ve suggested. Don’t allow making claims except in defensive wars. Allow most of the special CBs like bring into fold, end threat, etc. Humiliation should be allowed only on the defending side, same with Galatron. Don’t allow subjugation wars, but do allow wars for secret fealty. Change the megacorps to make expelling syndicates a different wargoal than expelling a normal megacorp. Something like “Expel Crime Lords” or whatever. Allow restricted to use this one, but not the one to expel normal megacorps. Basically wars that aren’t overtly imperialistic. Ideology wars should also be allowed. Any wargoal should be allowed as a defender. Restricted should mean your empire doesn’t particularly like war, but will use it in specific situations. And if they have to be at war anyways, they might as well use it to as much of an advantage as possible.

3) If they have to change Defensive to make it not completely undesirable, put something like “Claims in defensive wars are -50% cost”, remove the distance penalty for claims, something like that to represent the galactic community recognizing that you’re just trying to protect yourself from future attacks by this aggressor. After all, influence represents the ability of your empire to, well, influence the galaxy and other nations in it. Or, have the default wargoal for you as a defender be a special one that releases captured systems as a subject to represent your empire trying to prevent a second war in the future by putting a third nation between your empires. Crisis and end threat should be allowed as the only offensive wars as long as the target is at least Equivalent. Defensive should mean your empire hates war and will only fight in defense of self or allies/subjects. I don’t know if it needs a big change though, but I do think they should be allowed to fight genocidals or crisis if they’re Equivalent.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

I don’t think it needs a huge rework, it does exactly what it states ie ‘defensive wars only’ - you only fight in defence.

If it really needs changing, why not grant a bonus to fleets that take this stance much like the unyielding tradition? This represents having a home advantage and to gear towards defending the homeland, giving attackers a disadvantage in a 1:1 fight, with the unyielding tradition effectively doubling this bonus. You get stronger fleets, but only in your own territory, and you can declare a war of aggression.

If the aim of the post is to allow pacifists to fight aggressively, then I would respectfully disagree.

 

[currylambchop]

The "Defensive Wars" policy exists as a policy option for every ethic, not just the Fanatic Pacifist ethic. If it is essential that the Fanatic Pacifist ethic never ever whatsoever declares war, that could be handled as an additional diplomatic limitation that is a part of the Fanatic Pacifist ethic itself. That would be a cleaner design than making that aspect a separate policy that nobody else will ever choose voluntarily.

Sort of like how the Civilian Economy policy exists, could really just be deleted.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

If it really needs changing, why not grant a bonus to fleets that take this stance much like the unyielding tradition? This represents having a home advantage and to gear towards defending the homeland, giving attackers a disadvantage in a 1:1 fight, with the unyielding tradition effectively doubling this bonus. You get stronger fleets, but only in your own territory, and you can declare a war of aggression.

That is more a matter of War Doctrine, i.e. Defense in Depth (which, in my opinion, should be available via the Unyielding tree - the description of Defense in Depth even overlaps with the description of the Never Surrender tradition).

If the aim of the post is to allow pacifists to fight aggressively, then I would respectfully disagree.

The aim is that the most restrictive War Philosophy policy option should not exist only for the sake of Fanatic Pacifist. To the extent that the policy diverges from what (Fanatic) Pacifist should be, the remaining issues can be handled by placing extra diplomatic limitations directly on Pacifist, such as disallowing rivalries for Pacifist.

I think they should do something like:

1) Get rid of Liberation Wars policy. Unrestricted really should include it anyways. Unrestricted should mean your empire has no qualms about war. It’s just another tool for them to get what they want/need.

2) Change the middle policy to Restricted with some of the changes you’ve suggested. Don’t allow making claims except in defensive wars. Allow most of the special CBs like bring into fold, end threat, etc. Humiliation should be allowed only on the defending side, same with Galatron. Don’t allow subjugation wars, but do allow wars for secret fealty. Change the megacorps to make expelling syndicates a different wargoal than expelling a normal megacorp. Something like “Expel Crime Lords” or whatever. Allow restricted to use this one, but not the one to expel normal megacorps. Basically wars that aren’t overtly imperialistic. Ideology wars should also be allowed. Any wargoal should be allowed as a defender. Restricted should mean your empire doesn’t particularly like war, but will use it in specific situations. And if they have to be at war anyways, they might as well use it to as much of an advantage as possible.

3) If they have to change Defensive to make it not completely undesirable, put something like “Claims in defensive wars are -50% cost”, remove the distance penalty for claims, something like that to represent the galactic community recognizing that you’re just trying to protect yourself from future attacks by this aggressor. After all, influence represents the ability of your empire to, well, influence the galaxy and other nations in it. Or, have the default wargoal for you as a defender be a special one that releases captured systems as a subject to represent your empire trying to prevent a second war in the future by putting a third nation between your empires. Crisis and end threat should be allowed as the only offensive wars as long as the target is at least Equivalent. Defensive should mean your empire hates war and will only fight in defense of self or allies/subjects. I don’t know if it needs a big change though, but I do think they should be allowed to fight genocidals or crisis if they’re Equivalent.

I agree that Unrestricted should include the Ideology casus belli. Democratic Crusaders should be able to both make aggressive claims and force ideological conversion, without needing to flip-flop back and forth between the policy options.

With that being said, I am not convinced that Liberation Wars should be removed as a middle-ground option. In part because it is an easily explained middle ground (fighting wars of aggression but with the purpose of helping others), and in part because the position "no subjugation wars except secret fealties" makes sense for Liberation Wars, and also in part because the third and most restrictive policy option should not be so limiting that nobody picks it voluntarily and it only exists for the sake of Fanatic Pacifist, as is the case with the current Defensive Wars policy. Even the most restrictive option should allow "proactive defense" wars against genocidals, Colossus owners, Galatron owners and rivals, as well as wars of reconquest, and wars of independence against megacorps, overlords, hegemons and imperials (with the caveat that Pacifists would outright exclude some of these options and still hate the rest). Defensive Wars does not allow this, with the narrow exception of wars of independence against overlords.

Of course, one additional option could be to flip the roles in some wars. For instance, ending a Commercial Pact with a corporate empire could remove all of its corporate holdings, similar to how all overlord holdings are destroyed when a subject gains independence - but the corporate empire could get the option of fighting (as aggressor) for the preservation of the commercial pact, and the holdings.

Potentially, the same treatment could be given to the other wars of independence as well, where the subject/member would declare independence and the master would get the choice of whether to accept this development, or resist it (as aggressor). This would also allow for hegemonies and dominions to dissolve more naturally, where subjects just drift away without a war when the central power has lost the power to hold them in, and Support/Guarantee Independence could be a powerful anti-imperialistic tool that would further facilitate that dissolution (Support Independence should then count towards the independence guarantee limit of 3, and transform into Guarantee Independence upon independence).

These two last items would significantly reduce the number of "proactive defensive" wars that a Restrictive Wars policy would need to cover, but there would still be a few left: wars of reconquest and "proactive defense" wars against genocidals, Colossus owners, Galatron owners and rivals.



The tables below shows what the suggested offensive casus belli possibilities would look like under these premises:
* Unrestricted Wars allows the Ideology war goal
* Liberation Wars does not enable aggressive subjugation
* Liberation Wars does not enable aggressive Colossus wars
* Expel Corporation, Independence and Leave Hegemony become defensive war goals, if the other empire does not agree (Restricted Wars must agree)
* Restrictive Wars allows various wars of "proactive defense" (and also the Humiliate and Ideology wargoals in defensive wars)
* Pacifists cannot declare rivalries (and still punish aggressive wars with -30 approval for 20 years)
* (Optionally, Restricted Wars could award bonus Influence to independence guarantees rather than rivalry declarations)

Subjugation / supremacy	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Subjugation	x
Imposed Inclusion	x
Establish Hegemony	x

Aggressive conquest	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Genocidal civics	x
Existential Expulsion	x
Colossus	x
Conquer	x	x *

* Aggressive claims can only be made against Gestalt Consciousness empires.

Liberating something	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Secret Fealty	x	x
Council Seat	x	x
Ideology	x	x *
Bring Into Fold (Scion)	x	x
Seize Assets	x	x
Plunder	x	x	x **

* Aggressive use of the Ideology casus belli (by Liberation Wars) could be limited to rivalries, where it already replaces Animosity with Ideology.
** Barbaric Despoilers requires Militarist, whose faction hates this War Philosophy, making this is a fringe case.

"Proactive defense"	Unrestricted Wars	Liberation Wars	Restricted Wars	Restricted Wars +Fanatic Pacifist
Imperial Rebuke	x	x	x
Humiliate	x	x	x
Conquer	x	x *	x *	x *
Counterattack	x	x	x	x
Take Galatron	x	x	x	x
Stop Colossus	x	x	x	x
Preemptive War	x	x	x	x
End Threat	x	x	x	x

* Claims can only be made during defensive wars (or, in the case of Liberation Wars, against Gestalt Consciousness empires).

 

[Varren]

The aim is that the most restrictive War Philosophy policy option should not exist only for the sake of Fanatic Pacifist.

Why not? Fanatic Pacifists need to have some sort of policy option in that category. They could limit it to F. Pacifist only to keep it from being a noob trap (though I think the consequences are obvious enough).

Ideally, there could be more interesting side benefits for picking that policy. You could use it in conjunction with a benign diplomatic stance to appear non-threatening to other empires, for instance ("Yes, we're a bunch of xenophobic authoritarians, but we're not actually planning to enslave you"), or it could be imposed externally as a result of certain peace deals. Right now, though, you can just unilaterally swap your policy right before declaring war; there would need to be a more in-depth system for laws and internal politics (or at least a cost to switch things up) before that would make sense.

 

[Valen55]

I agree with this except for: End Threat, and crisis. The game gives you those CBs to represent that they’re not just an imperialistic threat, but a threat to the existence of life, period. I think even the most die-hard pacifists might be willing to fight a threat like that once they’ve seen what they’re capable of. By them choosing to do nothing, they’re not only allowing more violence than they’re stopping by not intervening, but also allowing the worst kind of violence.

I’d wager they could reason that intervention might result in some violence now, but not intervening will result in a lot of violence later.

Maybe the colossus one as well if someone uses the weapon on a colonized planet. Not only would they get the opinion hit, but it would activate their CB

I disagree with that. They're fanatic pacifists not just pacifists. Ultimately they would choose not to start a war with the crisis even if it was a threat to all life.

 

[SEELE 01]

The problem is that the game offers too little for pacifist empires in exchange for them to give up the initiation of war.

Something like the "Threatened" opinion modifier could be used for this scenario to fix things for now.
If an empire becomes too threatening, the pacist empires could unlock CB for they have "come to the last resort".
There is nothing else they can do to stop the threat except with violence.

PS. Pacifists should have a special AP like the Universal Transaction but gives free defensive pacts and non-aggression pacts.
Also a small buff for every defensive pact or non-aggression pact it signed.

 

[Foxosaur]

It has been argued that one of the big problems with the War Philosophy "Defensive Wars" (and thereby for Fanatic Pacifist) is that it is too restrictive, for empire growth as well as gameplay enjoyment. Currently, it does not allow any declaration of war except, supposedly, independence wars against overlords. What if this was relaxed somewhat, to a position that was more restrictive than "Liberation Wars" but not ultraradically pacifist? When considering that the Militarist ethic's faction is the "Imperialist" faction, a War Philosophy only needs to be anti-imperialist to be an opposite of what the Militarist ethic desires.


Thoughts on the possibility of replacing "Defensive Wars" with "Restricted Wars"?

I wanted to contribute on this thread but did not really have the time until now.

So on a personal level, my gripe with Fanatic Pacifist was multi pointed ( Here ) and the resulting conversation pointed towards Defensive Wars being simply too limiting, a "dead end". The consensus was that the tools outside of "war" were simply too limiting / none existent with Fan. Pacifist singlehandedly needing them and thus exposing the problem 'generally' with the war philosophy. Its the only ethic "forced" to take that war philosophy and becomes more poignant that there are no outside factors that make it "worth" taking such a philosophy for any other empire - but it "doesn't matter" to those empires. I think the point should be made, its a "undeveloped" part of the game.

From a strategy and gameplay perspective, "having nothing" in there is far too costly for a extra +5 stability and +15% empire sprawl reduction and its no wonder that people find it hard to commit too without being picked at by a-buzzard-like gameplay, never mind a conquering empire. Whereas I can happily say regular Pacifist and Liberation wars is awesome and has a nice little place in the game.

I think it can only enrich the game to make the Fan. Pacifist ethic "more viable" and "survivable" rather than it being "Just don't use it, if you don't like it the way it is". We have a lot of reasons to conquer and dominate in the game but there seems too few for peace and survival and less so tools to play that way and win.

[Edit] I like your table of war decs, maybe Pacifist even can ignore cool downs on wars, particularly counter-attack.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

A new suggestion has been created in the Suggestions forum:
Benefits of changing "Defensive Wars" to "Restricted Wars"