Before this is implemented I would want an end to the AI declaring war on me on turn 20 when their survey ship transits a wormhole into my side of the galaxy and then 'wages war' on me for the next 300 turns, refusing all peace offers.

I agree war weariness should be in, but it`s not so black and white in a Science fiction game...

Robotic AI type Factions should mostly likely be immune to war weariness, and only be more susceptible to stopping a war if it suits them logically.

Even non-robotic sentient aliens may not care for war weariness if they have a hive mentality where the individual is unimportant and again, only stop when the numbers logically mean the Race would go extinct.

So war weariness should be stronger for more sentient `human` Races, but less for robotic AI or starkly different races that don`t stop unless their very civilization may be destroyed- Meaning they will fight until you`re beating down their front door!

I see no reason robots should be immune to war weariness. War almost always means economic hardships and perhaps even shortages. What is a poor robot to do if the squeaky wheel can't get any grease?

This, tbh; war weariness shouldn't just represent the population getting pissed off. It's also representative of the strain on the economy caused by young men (or robots) being called up to serve in the military, the diversion of other production into arms manufacturing, and the general restructuring of the whole empire onto a war footing. I could see a discount on it for some races, though - in fact, it'd be a good replacement for the 'approval-on-conquest' ideology perk, which doesn't scale and so is absurdly overpowered on big maps.

The ground invasion mechanism in Galactic Civilizations is deeply flawed. A futuristic civilization would not send it's citizens to attack or defend invasions; it would have a professionally trained army of soldiers and/or robots. This is not medieval times where numbers are that important, equipment and training are.

So they should really change this terrible invasion mechanism to be about armies fighting armies and not civilians.

isn't it called "wariness"?

tbh I don't like it if a defeated party is penalized (1) they already are usually in a somewhat weaker position because to invade a planet demands for space superiority ie. stronger military on the attackers side (2) the loss of the planet will already penalize the defendant

making the weak side weaker, and more weaker with any lost planet will only result in the attacker becoming invincible soon after starting the fight. rather the penalty should be reversed, a faction that conquers other planets should get diplomatic penalties, or a moral loss if too many wars are fought simultanously.

understandbly, planets can be conquered if a race needs some more breathing room, but if a faction is expanding in all 4 directions this could raise some doubts if it is not too much or enough new worlds already.

some mentalities also become defiant (instead of depressed) if you do harm to them etc pp.. thinkable is any scenario.... so it could be individually & faction-based

from a thematical point of view, I agree, it seems like a complete genocidial drawn-out war where any & every civilian arms himself, even woman & children...

but from a balancing point this is so fine because it means if you want to conquer you'll have to subtract from your own pop which will mean a loss of prod etc so it's an investment, or tradeoff that, eg. doesn't really pay off so soon in a game, and that also someway guarantees an early focus on safe colonizational growth & not simply rushstorming an AI - because, in many otjer X4 games where you can build troops independantly of population these 2 things are usually threatened....

No. Wariness is 'to be wary' - trepidation. Weariness is to be weary - tired, exhausted. 

War Exhaustion isn't necessarily a punishment for the loser - you can be winning a war but be taking much higher casualties. It basically acts to prevent an empire with vast industrial superiority from just throwing crap ships at the enemy constantly to grind them down; their war exhaustion will skyrocket and tank their economy. It's also a good cue for an AI to use to see if it's being thrashed in a war (and thus determine the value it puts on peace deals). It's punishment for fighting the war badly, not for necessarily losing.  It acts to makes just sitting at war for long period very undesirable, and generally pushes you toward trying to do quick, effective campaigns rather than getting bogged down in long trench warfare.

Consider the Vietnam war. The USA couldn't possibly lose the Vietnam war. It had absolute and total military and industrial superiority; it had better weapons, vastly better technology and near-infinite financial resources. But it's war weariness capped out, and so it was forced to withdraw. You can compare it with pretty much everyone who's ever invaded Afghanistan, too, tbh. 

You can also play around with it for other benefits. Allow evil races to suppress it with ideology. Allow Neutral races to double it for enemies. Reduce the accumulation for small empires fighting larger enemies, and make it grow more quickly for large empires fighting easy prey. Let spies do missions to give big one-off increases. Have events that alter it, and UP resolutions. 

I've no objection to, say, a diplomatic penalty for taking over planets (in fact, there's already one for taking planets from empires that the AI has friendly relations with), but really, WE as a mechanic isn't a punishment for the weak.

okay thanks for the explanation^^

I like that. I was stressing that point, because, oftentimes in X4 games, you reach a point in military/productive/technological strength were nobody can fight back anymore - and because these strengths can be used to boost themselves up as well, it becomes a rollercoster effect and you know you#ve just won. and the game becomes boring.

so I wish, from midgame on until lategame, that things like growth, expansion, invasion should somehow become more difficult, or, at least, not more easy in relative terms...

Yea, and war weariness should barely have any effect on a nation that has been attacked first and is fighting to survive, especially if the aggressor is seeking total domination. War weariness mostly affects nations that attack others first and have the ability to pull out any time.

War weariness effects could also be lessened by a Dictatorial leadership and/or heavy media propaganda. Heavily vetting what is shown of the war to your people can lull them into a sense that there`s nothing to get weary about... As long as not too many coffins come home.