Warmonger status now involves chain DOWs?!?

[MantaRevan]

I was playing the Zulu yesterday, trying to get my first BNW domination win, but I don't think I'll be trying again.

I only had control of 3 of the capitals(including my own) when every civ the the game seemed forced to denounce me. Even the civs that I had DoFs with denounced me. This was irritating, but I was used to it, especially in BNW where the warmonger penalty ramps up much faster.

Less than 5 turns later literally every other civilization in the game declares war on me. This is 7 entire civilizations. Even Genghis Khan, who has a military dwarfed by mine that I left with one crappy city I couldn't be bothered to take attacks me. When Nebuchadnezzar attacks me, he specifically mentions that he doesn't really have any good reason to attack a world power much stronger than him.

Now I've lost all of my trade routes, at least 750 gold I put into research agreements, all of the gold I was getting from selling luxuries, and all of the happiness I was getting from selling luxuries.

This is just ridiculous. The warmonger penalty with G&K felt balanced, even if there was that weird 1 city exploit. In BNW did they really feel it necessary to add automatic chain DoWs to the penalty?

If they were going to do this, they should have triggered the realm divide until most players would actually be capable of handling it(1 or 2 capitals left, for example). I still have 5 left to grab and there's no way I can finish the game in constant war with everyone else. Or they could have at least made it a WC resolution or something. That way I could get some advanced warning and fight against it, rather than knowing less than 5 turns before when everyone denounces me.

In theory, all of the victory types in the game should be about as valid. In BNW it feels like the game is taking a stance against domination victories.

 

[Autoclave]

how are you on diplomacy side of things? have you got some allied city states? If not, then you are pretty much doomed.

The game wants you to be more smart and manipulative with other civs. Before you venture yourself into warmongering, bribe other civs to start wars on their neighbors.

 

[MantaRevan]

I think I had 3 CS allies, but Sweden stole one of them, and after the DOW, there's no way for me to get them back.

Like I said, I had 2 DoFs active, 2 research agreements active, and was getting somewhere in the neighborhood of ~20 gpt from trades with other civs and 16 happiness from them.

I never broke a promise, boarder or expansion, and I always denounced the civ before I attacked them to lessen the penalty. I wasn't managing the diplomacy poorly.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

You have to create blocs if you want to warmonger for domination. Get other civs to join you in wars. Only attack civs that have been diplomatically isolated. Just going after the weakest or nearest without a coalition is going to make the rest of the world alarmed at your aggressiveness.

 

[0R4NG3]

I had a similar experience, but not as annoying as yours.
Played as Venice, took 2 out of 3 of Ghandi's cities, then followed Ramses with 3 out of 6 taken, then Pacal (2 out of 3) and Dido (2 out of 3). Signed peace with all.
Then William (who is on the other continent) decides that he doesn't like me for some reason and declares war and all of the nations I fought earlier follow suit, despite having absolutely no chance against me.
The worst thing about the whole thing was that I couldn't negotiate peace with any of them for at least 50 turns, so it was really annoying, but didn't stop me from claiming domination victory.

 

[Polisurgist]

I wasn't managing the diplomacy poorly.

You had every civilization in the game declare war on you simultaneously. I'd say you were.

Or at least this is another +1 on the tired old "I'm playing a domination strategy and it's unfair that I'm being treated like I'm playing a domination strategy" whine.

 

[Novalia]

Try it again without all the denunciations.

 

[MantaRevan]

You had every civilization in the game declare war on you simultaneously. I'd say you were.

Or at least this is another +1 on the tired old "I'm playing a domination strategy and it's unfair that I'm being treated like I'm playing a domination strategy" whine.

This happened because something in the game forced 7 civilizations to simultaneously declare war on me, not because the diplomacy was badly managed.

I figured I would get a response from you because you always defend the warmonger penalty to an extreme extent. I don't know if you ever play domination, but it's in the game for a reason. It's presented as an equally valid path to victory, and I like to try it every now and then. Really though, what would you do to avoid this?No offense, but I don't want to hear you deride everyone who disagrees with the warmonger penalty as 'whiny' unless you can explain.

 

[MantaRevan]

You have to create blocs if you want to warmonger for domination. Get other civs to join you in wars. Only attack civs that have been diplomatically isolated. Just going after the weakest or nearest without a coalition is going to make the rest of the world alarmed at your aggressiveness.

I did. Pedro went to war with me against Genghis, Sweden was bribed against Pedro, and Japan and Spain helped me against Sweden. But this happened before that war was even over, and I was sitting on a strong triangle alliance with Spain and Japan.

 

[Machinegunkenny]

Yeah, diplomacy is my main gripe with Civ 5. I have been disenchanted with the diplomacy in this franchise for some time. I am not a warmonger yet find it way to easy to get warmonger status. Due to the VERY poor warmonger triggers I am even less inclined to adopt this play style in BNW now that trade routes are so crucial.

I cannot understand for the life of me why others are not upset with such a shallow diplomacy and poor AI. I have commented in other posts and it would seem that based on reactions that I am playing a very different game than others .

This causes a lack of immersion for me and it's just hard to get into.

 

[Wodan]

how are you on diplomacy side of things? have you got some allied city states? If not, then you are pretty much doomed.

The game wants you to be more smart and manipulative with other civs. Before you venture yourself into warmongering, bribe other civs to start wars on their neighbors.

I don't disagree, but that's actually the wrong question to ask.

Two different things:

• what to do to keep diplo high when warmongering
• the chain DOW dip penalty

i.e., once the chain starts, it doesn't really matter how high your relations were... the multiplicative effect is just overwhelming.

That said, if your relations are high enough, yeah they'll probably keep 1 or 2 AIs from DOWing you. So it may increase the "boil over point".

But it seems to me the real question is whether a dip chain penalty is the best way to implement the mechanic.

OTOH, it's definitely preferable to the other extreme... where the AIs stay happy with you and simply watch naively as you gobble them up one by one.

 

[Polisurgist]

This happened because something in the game forced 7 civilizations to simultaneously declare war on me, not because the diplomacy was badly managed.

I figured I would get a response from you because you always defend the warmonger penalty to an extreme extent. I don't know if you ever play domination, but it's in the game for a reason. It's presented as an equally valid path to victory, and I like to try it every now and then. Really though, what would you do to avoid this?No offense, but I don't want to hear you deride everyone who disagrees with the warmonger penalty as 'whiny' unless you can explain.

Yeah, it probably would be better for everyone if I ignored it every time I saw it, but until someone just relabels the BNW forum "Complain about robots not liking you here," I'll just muddle along somehow.

But since you asked, yes, I do play for domination at times, and at times, domination will show up as a quicker path to victory while I'm pursuing another strategy. As for how to avoid it, the answer is simply that I don't try to avoid it. If I'm playing a domination game, I start out knowing that the AI isn't going to sit on its hands while I eat up its neighbors and I plan accordingly. If I'm not trading externally, I redirect my routes internally or to nearby city-states; the extra production from internal routes helps mitigate combat losses. I don't get too stressed out if my GPT is in the negative, because I'm going to be making that up in pillage and in sacking cities. On balance, I end up with more gold in my treasury that way.

True, it would be great if I could have my cake and eat it too, getting all the benefits of conquest while also maintaining trades, but I don't go into the game expecting that and it turns out just fine most of the time.

 

[Tachii]

There was always chain DoWs ever since G&K. It usually happens like people have said already: if you poorly manage diplomacy.

There are faults with diplomacy in this game, obviously, but many people don't really know how the mechanics work and overexaggerates the faults.

I might go for a domination game next game to see if I can avoid chain DoWs, which is probably very doable. It's all about finding the weak links. DoW to a civ with an alliance is just begging for chain DoWs. DoWing already a hated civ, isn't. Though that's really just the basics. Sometimes sending a trade route alone can secure you some DoFs. Usually a wonderhog civ without a friend's list is easiest to conquer. Denounce them, and see your friends denounce them too, and wage a collective war and steal their stuff. Just some simple tips.

 

[sonicandfffan]

Actually your GPT shouldn't be negative if you connect all your puppet states together.

The hardest thing about a warmonger victory is definitely managing the happiness penalties.

And yes, I do expect the whole world to DoW me at some point.

 

[Polisurgist]

There was always chain DoWs ever since G&K. It usually happens like people have said already: if you poorly manage diplomacy.

It might be more accurate and palatable to say "if you manage diplomacy less well than one of the other civs." Because it's entirely possible that someone does a pretty good job, but one of the other civs in the game does it just a little better. In BNW, the AI seems to be better at managing these kind of byzantine deals that get the entire world to dislike you...but that isn't the AI cheating or playing a bad game, it's the AI playing a good game.

Also, people need to somehow get it through their heads that the "warmonger penalty" is just one of many diplomatic assets and liabilities you might have, and rarely on its own is enough to flip a potential ally over to an enemy. I've maintained beneficial (though not always stellar) relations with an AI that thought of me as a warmonger for hundreds of turns; usually, that relationship isn't going to end up anywhere pleasant, but it's enough for me to dump off my excess luxuries for some spare cash for a good long time.

 

[Kaigen]

It might be more accurate and palatable to say "if you manage diplomacy less well than one of the other civs." Because it's entirely possible that someone does a pretty good job, but one of the other civs in the game does it just a little better. In BNW, the AI seems to be better at managing these kind of byzantine deals that get the entire world to dislike you...but that isn't the AI cheating or playing a bad game, it's the AI playing a good game.

This. The last time I got chain DoW'ed in a domination game, it was because for every civ who liked me despite my warmongering ways, there was another civ they liked better. And then one particularly well-liked civ (Gandhi, as it happens) denounced me and the whole thing came tumbling down on my head.

Of course, I shot myself in the foot when somehow I got the notion in my head that denouncing Gandhi back was a good idea (hint: it wasn't).

 

[Aristos]

Nothing to do with your warmonger status per se, but with a fine-tuned opportunism of the AI. Code has been specifically added to BNW dll to account for opportunism; it checks how many wars you are in and the probability of success of your enemies; if the check is successful, the AI adds a weight to WAR approach (more likelihood).

That's why you see a lot of ganging on a civ that seems to be in military trouble, including the human.

 

[Dralix]

I did. Pedro went to war with me against Genghis, Sweden was bribed against Pedro, and Japan and Spain helped me against Sweden. But this happened before that war was even over, and I was sitting on a strong triangle alliance with Spain and Japan.

So you're saying you repeatedly went to war against the last civ who fought with you?

 

[kamikazees]

Nothing to do with your warmonger status per se, but with a fine-tuned opportunism of the AI....

Competitors often consider whether to kick a guy when he's down, and that's probably what happened to you.

I've played 3 domination games since BNW, and I did not get chain DOWs in any of them (although I received many chain denouncements). I usually play on Emperor. I've also had double and triple DOWs in games where I was playing peaceful. I've seen this "dogpile" happen quite a bit, and I think it's a good mechanic overall.

My advice is to hang in there if it's possible. Maybe try to sue for peace with the ones putting pressure on you, so you can focus on silencing the ones you need to kill immediately. Soon, no one will be talking smack!

 

[MantaRevan]

So you're saying you repeatedly went to war against the last civ who fought with you?

More or less, although I only made 2 dows. 1 on Brazil and 1 on Mongolia. Sweden attacked me.