The warmonger penalty

It's unrealistic. Civ games have tried to stay true to history, but this is just a gameplay crutch and nothing more.

Historically, you could conquer to your heart's content in the earlier eras, you needed some Casus Beli during Medieval times (but not always and not everyone cared too much) and during the industrial and modern era's we've had huge wars and a lot of annexation of land.

Only recently, with the UN and the nuclear powers have we seen an end to wars that are basically glorified land grabs.

Why on Earth would nations act like the moral police in the early stages of the game? You conquer a city state and they all denounce you and deny you trade (even for luxuries they crave)?! It has never happened. Great powers annexed smaller city states or tribes/kingdoms throughout time. Warmongering was viewed favorably during classical antiquity - the Greek City States started it and then the Roman Republic was heavily into war. You couldn't even advance in office if you had not proven yourself in the field.

During medieval times, sieges, ransoming and wars for strategic castles and cities were common. Not to mention religious wars.

Let's not even forget the Napoleonic wars, WW1, WW2 and so on.

Now, realistically, can any of this happen in BNW? If you annex a city state you get DOW-ed by half the world. You can actually go to war when you get Autocracy and artillery and have little incentive to do so before then.

Warmonger penalties should give an increasing chance of the remaining factions banding together vs. the player in a coalition. If you have more settlements than the rest of the factions combined for example, or if you have twice the troops or some such.

The earlier you annex a city, the lesser the penalty should be for doing so. The Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople 500 years ago yet now everyone calls it Istanbul and we deem it theirs by right. How can this happen in BNW? You can capture a capital as the Huns in the time of hunter-gatherers and everyone will hate you for it until the end of time (well, everyone who has met you that is).

Civilizations far away from conflict should care little for it. Why should Brazil, settled on another continent, care that Mongolia has annexed Sofia? It's not like they'll be sailing their Keshiks to Rio now is it?

Large armies makes people uncomfortable. And fear leads to hatred and all that. Besides, war has always lead to more war.

I agree the penalty is unrealistic and artificial. Diplomacy needs a lot of work to better reflect real world relations. It's just really hard to do right I think.

Myth and Legend said:

Only recently, with the UN and the nuclear powers have we seen an end to wars that are basically glorified land grabs.

Click to expand...

Tell that to Ukraine.

However it is introduced as a balancing mechanism to deter early war shurely?

Heretiv said:

However it is introduced as a balancing mechanism to deter early war shurely?

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's not good game design. It's a bandaid solution that ruins immersion and makes NO historical sense. What does Dido, Queen of Carthage care for my warmongering? Especially if she is getting 30 gpt from trade? Right now everyone bar Genghis, Shaka, Alex and Attila is a goody two shoes, pointing fingers and denouncing over a bad glance.

The German denounced me last night then asked to exchange embassies then mocked the size of my army. All in three consecutive turns. My army is currently outside of Berlin. The Warmonger Penalty and diplomacy be damned.

Myth and Legend said:

Yes, but it's not good game design. It's a bandaid solution that ruins immersion and makes NO historical sense....

Click to expand...

The game is not meant to make any historical sense, and that's probably why many people love civ as they get to play out what-if scenarios.

Before I understood the warmongering mechanic I would agree with you that the warmongering mechanic is bad game design, but now I do I disagree with you. It is entirely possible to wage major early war against a civ without major penalty if you can gain allies in your war, or haven't met anyone yet. Pick the right time and you'll get way with warmongering, pick the wrong time and as you have seen you pay the price diplomatically.

early conquering snowballs quickly, especially if you captured a wondermonger's capital. Yes, warmonger penalty is bad if you don't choose your conquests, but the only reason you war early is to take capitals, right?

You already can't war continuously early because you don't have enough gold to support a world-crushing army until economical techs later--that and oceans. And the AI already jump you and fear you. I think these first two are crutches are fine...it's the global unhappiness mechanic and fact that you can't burn capitals that always stops me cold. I ALWAYS have to wait to either meet more CS's for luxuries or tech a happiness-boosting building or wonder. The warmonger penalty is nothing...you can can get by without trading with the AI. I think it makes sense that if you've made it clear you want to conquer to world they cut off trade...they may do it a bit quick, but it's not all that bad of an idea.

It would be nice if there were ways to reduce the warmonger penalty in addition to liberating (which is reactionary and unreliable). Does it fade over time? That would make sense and could work well as a mechanic. Like drop some amount with each new era. Also it would be nice if there were a repeatable World Congress proposal like "Amnesty" that would reduce everyone warmonger penalty.

Slightly as an aside, are BNW's caravans and cargo ships integrated into the diplomacy system? They should be unavailable/canceled if the other civ denounces you/doesn't share embassies. Things like this could make for other ways to disincentivize early wars, rather than getting permanently tagged with a scarlet letter for warmongering.

The warmonger penalty exists as-is because the devs wanted the game to last into the modern era and beyond. If the AI allowed you to warmonger early without penalty, the game would be too easy and over before the industrial era and then players wouldn't experience the new ideology and world congress game play.

A tip for warmongering: send tribute to the civs you wish to be friendly with, even when they aren't asking for it, and try to get your religion spread to them before they found their own religion. You need as much positive diplo modifiers as possible to offset the negative modifiers warmongering brings.

I think it was a good change. Before this, it was usually a no-brainer to CB rush your nearest neighbor.

chazzycat said:

I think it was a good change. Before this, it was usually a no-brainer to CB rush your nearest neighbor.

Click to expand...

Agreed. This isn't a war game, and vanilla and g&k has became redundant and losing it's gameplay hours because of war. At least now, I won't have to worry about throwing my keyboard and mouse out the window because I get DOW'd on.

...I really need to go to anger management.

The way I see it is that the game can't replicate the not-enough-information environment of ancient eras. The reason ancient wars were okay in history was because nations had no idea what was going on on the other end of the world. However, it changed as soon as a war happened near their borders. The world of Civ 5 is small no matter what map size you choose. AIs treat the whole map as their potential territory, and meeting another civ is enough for knowing about all its military activities. Shaka conquered a capital in a far away land? - Now you know it even though a Zulu scout is the only trace of Zulu civilization you have ever met so far.

Think about ancient wars in Civ 5 as skirmishes in Europe and Mediterranean. Rome wasn't praised by other nations for its conquests at all. I`m not saying the current AI behavior is historically accurate, but once you scale down your perception of the map the reactions to warmongering start to make sense.

Myth and Legend said:

Why on Earth would nations act like the moral police in the early stages of the game? You conquer a city state and they all denounce you and deny you trade (even for luxuries they crave)?! It has never happened. Great powers annexed smaller city states or tribes/kingdoms throughout time. Warmongering was viewed favorably during classical antiquity - the Greek City States started it and then the Roman Republic was heavily into war. You couldn't even advance in office if you had not proven yourself in the field.

Click to expand...

It is always the case. You are talking about human history...not AI history. Play MP games and you will retreive that kind of dynamic. In these games more the game is going through eras more the World Congress has his capacity to reduce warmongers evil plans. Alliances can change rapidly. The little changes can make some collateral damages but will never been attributed to a single player ALL THE GAME like in singleplayer mode.

Makes the AI more fierce and intelligent and maybe then it will be possible to recreate a game more human like.

Walter E Kurtz said:

Tell that to Ukraine.

Click to expand...

And Serbia! Actually in both cases a superpower separated territory from a lesser power by overawing it without actually going to war.

Anyway these examples serve only to strengthen the OP's point. The warmonger penalty is unrealistic.

Sagax said:

Think about ancient wars in Civ 5 as skirmishes in Europe and Mediterranean. Rome wasn't praised by other nations for its conquests at all.

Click to expand...

I think that is wrong. The prestige of Julius Caesar and Alexander was founded on military success, and it lingers to this day.

That people like winners is a well known fact.

qemist said:

I think that is wrong. The prestige of Julius Caesar and Alexander was founded on military success, and it lingers to this day.

That people like winners is a well known fact.

Click to expand...

Say that to Persians, Carthage, Gauls and other conquered nations. Carthage would definitely praise Romans for burning them to the ground.

People like winners from a distance. Come closer and they will fear them.

It could be argued that the Roman's over-reliance on their military to solve all their problems was a major contributing factor to their eventual downfall. Live by the sword, die by it.

chazzycat said:

It could be argued that the Roman's over-reliance on their military to solve all their problems was a major contributing factor to their eventual downfall. Live by the sword, die by it.

Click to expand...

I thought it was the government corruption, poor economy at home and over expansion that did them in, not just their warlike behavior.