Warmonger penalty never leaves.

Polisurgist said:

There are as many increments between doormat and warmonger as your opponent has cities. This whining about how nobody likes you when you're conquering the planet really gets tiresome.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point. If you get DOW'ed, successfully defend yourself, you are not allowed to take a single city without getting diplo destroyed. Not talking about "conquering the planet", and expecting nothing but smiles as you war monger. More like being 99% peaceful (take one city after being attacked) and getting warmonger label for 5,000 years. Big difference.

Moderator Action: Please remember that you are responsible for the entire contents of your post, including what you quote.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

number51 said:

I think you missed the point. If you get DOW'ed, successfully defend yourself, you are not allowed to take a single city without getting diplo destroyed

Click to expand...

I stopped reading right here because this is flat out not true. You will take a bit for taking cities, but you won't get "destroyed" for taking a single city, and saying so...well, is Emo Hitler talking.

Polisurgist said:

I stopped reading right here because this is flat out not true. You will take a bit for taking cities, but you won't get "destroyed" for taking a single city, and saying so...well, is Emo Hitler talking.

Click to expand...

I don't think you read the thread before posting.

You said "This whining about how nobody likes you when you're conquering the planet really gets tiresome."

That didn't happen. Nobody is saying that going for conquest shouldn't get you labeled as a warmonger. The part you forgot to read was that after never DOWing any civ and only going after one civ that attacked you first get's you warmonger for 2,000 years. That is messed up.

Try to get in out of your head that this is about warmongers being called what they are, that part is working fine. It's the whole peaceful for thousands of years, never DOW'ed anyone, warmonger that is broken.

number51 said:

That didn't happen. Nobody is saying that going for conquest shouldn't get you labeled as a warmonger. The part you forgot to read was that after never DOWing any civ and only going after one civ that attacked you first get's you warmonger for 2,000 years. That is messed up.

Try to get in out of your head that this is about warmongers being called what they are, that part is working fine. It's the whole peaceful for thousands of years, never DOW'ed anyone, warmonger that is broken.

Click to expand...

So, let's say that in my revisionist history: Mongolia since inception, stays isolationist until the Modern Era and then one day is attacked by Afghanistan one September morning. It then very reasonably goes into Afghanistan, kills half its population, and then puppets the whole country. You think just because Mongolia used to be so isolationist that people aren't going to start calling it a warmonger now? Just because they USED to be so isolationist?

You're a warmonger if you Annex/Puppet another civilization. Regardless of your history. The game acts like it. That part's all working fine. It's the perpetual chain denunciations that are broken. And even at that, only the "perpetual" part.

adwcta said:

So, let's say that in my revisionist history: Mongolia since inception, stays isolationist until the Modern Era and then one day is attacked by Afghanistan one September morning. It then very reasonably goes into Afghanistan, kills half its population, and then puppets the whole country. You think just because Mongolia used to be so isolationist that people aren't going to start calling it a warmonger now? Just because they USED to be so isolationist?

You're a warmonger if you Annex/Puppet another civilization. Regardless of your history. The game acts like it. That part's all working fine. It's the perpetual chain denunciations that are broken. And even at that, only the "perpetual" part.

Click to expand...

In your scenario of course Mongolia should be viewed as a warmonger.

Different scenario: the Mongolian war happened in 100 BC and now it's 1900 AD and Mongolia has been completely peaceful for 2,000 years. Should they still be viewed as warmongers? That's broken.

Right, this is what happened, for those who want an easy synopsis.
Continent consists of me, Monty, Oda, Washington, Isabella, Askia, Genghis and Napoleon. Monty is my direct neighbor, with Oda, Washington and Isabella close, the other ones behind them. On a continent closeby, there's Maria I and Wu Zetian.

Turn 62: DOF with Washington and Genghis, as well as good relationships with everyone else. Then Monty attacks.
Nobody denounces Monty or anything.
Turn ~100: Monty completely obliterated from the face of the earth.
At this point, I counted on a few denouncations, maybe a DoW or two, cause well, I did deserve that.
In the past 200 turns:
4 DOW's from Washington
3 DOW's from Oda
3 DOW's from Isabella (Who has the warmongering as the only negative - and a huge slew of positives)
3 DOW's from Genghis
2 DOW's from Askia
2 DOW's from Maria I
Denouncations from EVERY civ on the world map (Tho those on other continents have stabilized and are now even friendly)
We're around turn 300 now, and I'm once more locked in a gruelling war with Oda and Washington, while Askia is lurking on my borders. Ever since taking out Montezuma, I HAVE NOT TAKEN OR BUILT A SINGLE CITY.
I have given those who keep DOW'ing me free resources. cities they gave me in peace deals, Ive given back. I've given resources upon (brief) DOF's. I made proposals to the world congress everyone liked. How can I EVER repair my friendship status if that doesn't work?
What's worse is that nobody ever denounced anybody for, oh, attacking people they have a DoF with (Oh hi Genghis/Washington). Or for Oda eventually obliterating Genghis.
Which leads to a further problem. I cannot have trade routes - they get insta-plundered anyway by any random DoW. While it's fair for Oda and Washington to stay somewhat hostile (Shared borders, huge amount of troops in the general vicinity of their borders), it makes no sense for the others.
The chain denouncations have ebbed away, but those on my home continent still consider me a warmonger. Even though I never DOW'd. Only Napoleon remains neutral. It's just...ugh.

I might be wrong but I believe you become the aggressor when you start taking the cities of the attacker. I think the AIs prefer you defend yourself but not to turn aggressive on a defeated foe. Also, if Monty offered you Peace Deals but you refused, you could be marked as a Warmonger in the eyes of the other Civs.

It kinda makes sense in real life. When Iraq attacked Kuwait in the 90s, Iraq was the warmonger. US kicked them out of Kuwait. Fast forward to 2003 and America invades Iraq. In some sense, it was just a continuation of the first war for Americans. But America suffered a diplo hit internationally, ie no coalition, French opposition, etc.

number51 said:

In your scenario of course Mongolia should be viewed as a warmonger.

Different scenario: the Mongolian war happened in 100 BC and now it's 1900 AD and Mongolia has been completely peaceful for 2,000 years. Should they still be viewed as warmongers? That's broken.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Humans are certainly capable of holding grudges for thousands of years. I suppose if your civilization committed genocide against another civilization, it might make sense that the other civs are wary of your future actions far into the future. Barbarians are one thing; but wiping out an entire civilization that has begged for mercy?

I think a better analogy would be Rome crushing Carthage in 146 BC. Were Egypt, Greece, and Turkey friendly with Italy by 1900 AD? In 1911-12 Italy and Turkey fought a war that ended in a loss for the Ottomans.

Fun fact: The Italo-Turkish War was the first in history to feature aerial bombardment by airplanes and airships.

Jatta Pake said:

I don't know. Humans are certainly capable of holding grudges for thousands of years. I suppose if your civilization committed genocide against another civilization, it might make sense that the other civs are wary of your future actions far into the future. Barbarians are one thing; but wiping out an entire civilization that has begged for mercy?

I think a better analogy would be Rome crushing Carthage in 146 BC. Were Egypt, Greece, and Turkey friendly with Italy by 1900 AD? In 1911-12 Italy and Turkey fought a war that ended in a loss for the Ottomans.

Click to expand...

Would China still be pissed at Rome/Italy in 1900 for what happened to Carthage in 146 BC?

This problem is not about calling warmonger, it's about never ending diplo hits from uninvolved civs.

Polisurgist said:

I'm guessing you're also one of the people pissed that it's harder to sucker the AI into getting into a stupidly lopsided war with you just by pushing a few obvious buttons?

The warmonger penalty now is based almost entirely on how early you declare war and how many cities you take or raze, relative to the size of your opponent's empire. You don't, and you shouldn't, get a break because you somehow managed to annoy a robot.

The warmonger penalty does decay, and relatively quickly. The chain of denunciations that follows could use some fixing, since if you get 2-3 civs denouncing you a turn or two apart, each denunciation leads to another and they spiral for a long time. That's the OP's problem, not the fact that you can't stand around yelling "NOT TOUCHING YOU" until you get punched.

Click to expand...

No I'm not, so please don't make false assumptions. In over two dozen games, since Vanilla Civ5 first came out, I've only "started" a single war, & even that one was due to a Mutual Defense Agreement. I just happen to believe that there need to be some more explicit "rules" involved regarding how an AI judges the wars you get involved in. Going on a Counter-Offensive after beating off an attack should *not* be judged as warmongering by the AI. Nor should a war declared after you've given an opponent warnings about certain behaviour-settling, spying or troops near the border. I've indicated that there *need* to be situational modifiers that make it more....realistic (I am, & always have been, more of a role-player than a game-player), such as the relationship statuses of the AI's to the protagonist & how often you've given warnings to/denounced your opponent. Seriously, why are you having so much difficulty understanding this simple concept?

I agree. I've played two games so far and always play passively but the A.I usually declares war on me. I defend myself and maybe take a city or two, then I become a warmonger to the whole world!

In the situation above, there are more factors than just the warmonger penalty to consider when an AI civ DoW's you. There are more factors than just diplo as well. The weaker you are, the more likely they are to DoW. There's also an innate predisposition for war that each AI has - Monty, Oda, Washington, Isabella, Askia, Genghis and Napoleon ALL being on the high side of that scale.

There is also a random component to their war predisposition. I don't think I've ever started next to Napoleon without being DoW'd, and same with Oda and Genghis. But it is possible that in this game they were all high on that random component.

So I think to get the best comparison, you have to know how well the AI's are getting along with each other as well. If the AI's are DoW'ing each other like crazy along with you, as seems to have happened in the OP's game, it's just one of those games. Otherwise, it can be hard to tell how one AI feels about another declaring war. A lot of the time, you just focus on the units that are banging on your door and nothing else. But you can't read the Denouncements of lack thereof as an indication to how well the AI's are getting along, because hey, they have a flavor for deceptiveness as well. And for that matter, an AI like Isabella is high on deceptiveness and war, so that explains the DoW from her despite the numerous positive modifiers. She really never was feeling good about you.


I do think the BnW AI is much more predisposed to Warmonger hate though. The tough thing to stomach is that no matter how things devolve, you get hit with penalties when you capture cities. You can really only lessen those penalties. On the positive side though, things tend to clean up really quickly once Ideologies come out, provided you have decent Tourism. I have been really liking Assyria for this reason. The Royal Libraries give you a pretty costless way to develop the Tourism you'll need for steady allies.

Using merchants of venice to buy CS's is considered aggression and will wreck your standing with other civs: Both as aggressive expansion and as warmongering.

*throws disc out the window*

de_baser said:

Using merchants of venice to buy CS's is considered aggression and will wreck your standing with other civs: Both as aggressive expansion and as warmongering.

*throws disc out the window*

Click to expand...

No it isn't.

I can confirm that the warmongering penalty can leave.

I was aggressive early against Pocatello after he crapped out one of his huge cities at my door-step. The label lasted no more than an era, even for Pocatello.

Helmling said:

Wait, did you eliminate Monty? The AIs hate it when you wipe someone off the map.

Click to expand...

Apparently they don't mind so much anymore. It's the number of cities you take relative to the size of their empire. So if you take 3 out of 20 cities, you are probably ok. If you take all 20, you're not.

Here's my experience in my first BNW game, going for a diplo win with Arabia:


What I sense from this is:

• How you start the game sets the tone for how other civs will tend to perceive you. I started peacefully, Isabella started warlike, and the labels sort of stuck.
• Taking a couple cities when you've been declared war on is fair game, going full on and castrating the opposing civ will net you some penalties.
• Your long time friends will tend to sweep things under the rug - though things may have been different had my army been wiped out in the process of dealing with Spain?

Loucypher said:

Right, this is what happened, for those who want an easy synopsis.
Continent consists of me, Monty, Oda, Washington, Isabella, Askia, Genghis and Napoleon. Monty is my direct neighbor, with Oda, Washington and Isabella close, the other ones behind them. On a continent closeby, there's Maria I and Wu Zetian.

Turn 62: DOF with Washington and Genghis, as well as good relationships with everyone else. Then Monty attacks.
Nobody denounces Monty or anything.
Turn ~100: Monty completely obliterated from the face of the earth.
At this point, I counted on a few denouncations, maybe a DoW or two, cause well, I did deserve that.
In the past 200 turns:
4 DOW's from Washington
3 DOW's from Oda
3 DOW's from Isabella (Who has the warmongering as the only negative - and a huge slew of positives)
3 DOW's from Genghis
2 DOW's from Askia
2 DOW's from Maria I
Denouncations from EVERY civ on the world map (Tho those on other continents have stabilized and are now even friendly)

Click to expand...

There is your problem. Wiping out a civilization will always result in heavy penalties, and the reason the warmonger penalty lasts so long in your case is because you literally brought up everyone against yourself, which strengthens the bonds between the AI, turning into some perpetual hatred. I think this makes perfect sense tbh. Retaliation is always accepted to a certain degree(!), the complete removal of a civ has never been.

From my understanding, your warmonger "rating" basically raises whenever you take a city based on the % of the chunk you are taking on that Civ. If you take the last city for a civlization, that's going to be the biggest blow. If you take a small bite out of the side of a huge sprawling empire, it's not going to be that much.

This is why warmonger can hit hard if you war in the early game against opponents who have very few cities. You are seen as a bully because you are eliminating huge chunks (relatively) out of your opponents, or conquering them completely.

Rejecting peace deals has zero effect on warmonger.