Warmonger penalty never leaves.

Cymsdale said:

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.

Click to expand...

Would this mean that the best way to expand aggressively would be to take small chunks out of many different civs? Surely issuing many DoWs would play a part as well...

It would be interesting if someone would test out the best way to expand lebensraum-style: is it better to take 3 cities from 3 civs each, or just grab a 9-city chunk out of some large, sprawling empire?

I think the intended effect is to distinguish between someone who is cutting a crazy expansionist down to size, and someone who is simply bullying the weak for personal gain.

They also need to build population into the warmonger equation.

If I take the AI's two largest cities (including Capital), I should be considered way worse than if I took 2 3-pop city the AI settled next to me from a different continent.

Also, if I have not yet met half the civs in the game yet (other continent yet to be discovered by anyone), will my early warmongering come into play once I meet the new civs? I really hope not. I am a reformed warmonger now! (at least in this game)

cairnsy44 said:

Also, if I have not yet met half the civs in the game yet (other continent yet to be discovered by anyone), will my early warmongering come into play once I meet the new civs? I really hope not. I am a reformed warmonger now! (at least in this game)

Click to expand...

They won't consider you a warmonger, but if someone told you to move away from their borders and you attacked them after you said you would not, they will magically know about that.

Did the other civs have any reason to like you? I.e. same religion, tenets, gifts, trades, etc.? Did you have trade routes with any of them? DoF's?

If they're all neutral, then going on a conquering spree, regardless of who started the fight, would get you the Warmongering tag. That would be enough to shift the balance, so that one (or more) civs hate you. Then it snowballs.

If you want good relations, you need to cultivate them early. Likely you beat the snot out of Monte before you had any friends...now they've all put you in the corner as if you're a big bully. They never had a chance to get to know you.

Next time, beat back the attack, keep him at bay (possibly pillage every stinkin' tile he controls), build some friends, and then wipe him off the face of the earth.

It seems to be less of an issue in BNW, but the problem I've had in past versions of Civ5 is that, once a neighbor declares war on you, taking a city is the only way to convince them to end the war. You could destroy their whole army without losing a unit, and they would still keep pressing on.

Demartus said:

Did the other civs have any reason to like you? I.e. same religion, tenets, gifts, trades, etc.? Did you have trade routes with any of them? DoF's?

If they're all neutral, then going on a conquering spree, regardless of who started the fight, would get you the Warmongering tag. That would be enough to shift the balance, so that one (or more) civs hate you. Then it snowballs.

If you want good relations, you need to cultivate them early. Likely you beat the snot out of Monte before you had any friends...now they've all put you in the corner as if you're a big bully. They never had a chance to get to know you.

Next time, beat back the attack, keep him at bay (possibly pillage every stinkin' tile he controls), build some friends, and then wipe him off the face of the earth.

Click to expand...

I had DOF's with Mongolia and the USA. I had provided Spain and the USA with a gift when they needed it (Had 6 pearls so...). I had trade routes running to the USA and Portugal during the war with Montezuma.
That is probably what pisses me off most about the whole situation. The simple fact that despite breaking a DOF to attack me, America never faced any retaliation. Mongolia did, but that was Japan retaliating to Mongolia's aggression themselves.
We're now far in the Industrial. I'm the only one with an Ideology so far (Courtesy of 3 factories), but otherwise I have a huge stack of positive modifiers (World congress, traded recently, that kind of stuff). They still keep attacking. My army is on the same level as Japan's who has the biggest army (mine's just a tiny bit smaller).

Surprisingly, I seem not to get the 'we traded recently' modifier since BNW launched.

Ugh, this is driving me nuts too. I like the idea of a warmonger penalty, but this game is just absurd. I conquered two cities in the BCs and by the Information Era half the civs are still pissed off about it. I haven't fought a single war since. Also, the diplo in general seems to have gotten worse, with one neighbour alternating randomly between being Friendly and denouncing me. As soon as the denounciation wears off, he'll offer all these deals... Then denounce me again. The AI is just completely insane.

Spiceweasel said:

It seems to be less of an issue in BNW, but the problem I've had in past versions of Civ5 is that, once a neighbor declares war on you, taking a city is the only way to convince them to end the war. You could destroy their whole army without losing a unit, and they would still keep pressing on.

Click to expand...

My experience is the exact opposite. Sometimes I'll just placed a strong ranged unit in a city and rushbuy any fortifications it requires. A few turns later, the first units I set for production in other cities are now popping. A few turns after that, they've traveled along the road network used to connect my cities to the capital, and are now killing enemy units. Once the initial invasion force is destroyed, almost unequivocally (I have to account for the couple times a particularly aggressive civ has forced me to take a city before surrendering . . . and giving me yet more cities), they surrender a city, a luxury, and some GPT. No experience with Immortal/Deity, though, if you're plaing on those levels.

Nooble said:

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!

Click to expand...

A better way to wage war in cIV is to defend against the invasion, take the war to their cities. You don't need to capture their cities. Harassing them would in most cases result in a favourable peace agreement (gold, a city or two, few luxuries). Immediately denounce them as soon as peace is signed. Soon all your friends will denounce him as well. Now DoW that guy & ask your friends to join your war as well & eradicate that backstabbing jerk!

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Babri said:

A better way to wage war in cIV is to defend against the invasion, take the war to their cities. You don't need to capture their cities. Harassing them would in most cases result in a favourable peace agreement (gold, a city or two, few luxuries). Immediately denounce them as soon as peace is signed. Soon all your friends will denounce him as well. Now DoW that guy & ask your friends to join your war as well & eradicate that backstabbing jerk!

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Click to expand...

Okay, I guess that's the best way to handle getting DOW'ed early on. I'm glad there is a solution, but very disappointed that it is so convoluted and specific.

A non permanent warmonger label for fighting back might also work.

They really need to take into account that during World War II, the US declared war on Germany after it had taken over numerous territories. After the US had essentially taken all the German cities (with Soviets also), the US wasn't condemned, but rather lauded.

Do the same thing in BNW and the AI will hate you. Yet now Germany is one of the US' strongest allies, as is Japan.

Realistically as well as for the sheer balance of gameplay, a future BNW patch needs to address the impossible-to-remove warmongerer status. A peaceful defender in particular shouldn't be criticized for taking the enemy warmonger's cities.

bison21 said:

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.

Click to expand...

A smart player can take advantage of this, instead of stumbling blindly into the diplomacy traps. You really have to play badly to setup a situation where *everyone* denounce or war you.

I constantly setup all the AI's to hate the AI civ I'm going to war with first. Creating a alliance block and making them dislike the same civ gives plenty of positive modifiers that warring and even killing a civ will be ignored by the diplomacy system.

The whole diplomacy system is inconsistent to say the least, and hypocritical. You will see how this works on deity level.

One game, Assyria wiped out Morrocco and all AIs did not show one sign of discontent and it occurred on my side of the map. Meanwhile on my side of the world, Montezuma wanted to rush me. Again, no sign of negative diplomacy. Even when there was peaceful civ like Byzantium and Morrocco.

In another game, Japan was one away settlement from my door step. He decided to dump a settlement there, unsurprisingly. Low and behold he declared war on me with swordsmen and spearmen by the time I had an two archers and just finished one spearman. I tried to negotiate peace, and he refused. Furthermore, on his second assault, he had samurais (longswordsmen) and I only had two cities as all resources was dedicated to defence.

The current system does not show sign that when other AIs go to war when the human player is weak. Secondly, the system does not recognise attempt at declaration of peace. And of course as other have said, perpetual denouncement. The denouncement system made by AI does not seem to have its own opinion, just a generic one and one based on existing denouncement (which therefore give rise to the perpetuation). In other words, denouncement tend to be based on ignorance. The only time when it is not, is when one civ has declared war on them. Surprisingly, the likelihood of AI denounce another AI post declaration of peace is very low, whereas for human player, it is almost immediate.

The worst and most frustrating diplomacy aspect is attempt at peace. If a civ intiated declaration of peace, they should get positive points for it. Furthermore, if any peace succeeded then even more points, and for both civs. If a civ declared war, they should receive relatively much fewer positive points when it comes to peace resolution, even if they initiated peace. And given a period of ongoing war, the number of initiated peace agreement should also be taken into account for positive points.

Just got BNW, playing as Venice, and I may have a similar issue related to this thread topic:

I've been leaching techs from Indonesia (who are ahead in tech, ahead of me in 3rd spot by 3% in literacy) and now they're plotting against me and have sent an army towards one of my puppeted CS using merchant of Venice, but hasn't DoWed me yet. Should I denounce now before he attacks me or not? I have withdrawn one trade route from Indonesia already.

sendos said:

Just got BNW, playing as Venice, and I may have a similar issue related to this thread topic:

I've been leaching techs from Indonesia (who are ahead in tech, ahead of me in 3rd spot by 3% in literacy) and now they're plotting against me and have sent an army towards one of my puppeted CS using merchant of Venice, but hasn't DoWed me yet. Should I denounce now before he attacks me or not? I have withdrawn one trade route from Indonesia already.

Click to expand...

If they are your friend or have a strong diplomatic position (i.e they've lot of friends) then don't denounce them. Otherwise you can do it. Also build up some army & fortify them near your threatened city.

An even more better approach would be to bribe them by offering gold to declare war on another civ.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Indonesia's diplomatic position, I think, is a bit shaky. A few other civs wanted to me to consider attacking them. They neighbour America and they've fought America a few times. To me, they act friendly but they refused a declaration of friendship (mainly because I wanted to milk them).

Their army, as far as I can see, consists of 2 longswordsmen (I managed to see them use their kris swordsmen a while back as I saw the mystic blade promotion names appear near their capital, and I know that Indonesia has 1 longswordsmen with heroism), 2 pikemen, 1 trebuchet and 1 crossbowmen. My army meeting them consists of 2 longswordsmen with rough promotion fortified in a forest, 1 crossbowman and 2 knights. I intend to move my scout crossbowmen over there, which has accuracy 2.

The terrain around Sydney (the puppeted CS under threat) consists of a mountain range beteen Venice and Sydney. Sydney can only be attacked from 2 hill tiles and the sea. It has around 27 defence.

Income: around 125GPT. Treasury consists of around 700 gold. I could rush purchase another crossbowman at Sydney.

Morningcalm said:

They really need to take into account that during World War II, the US declared war on Germany after it had taken over numerous territories. After the US had essentially taken all the German cities (with Soviets also), the US wasn't condemned, but rather lauded.

Do the same thing in BNW and the AI will hate you. Yet now Germany is one of the US' strongest allies, as is Japan.

Click to expand...

I think the following two things are crucial in their difference:
1. In ww2 a great amount of countries was involved, in the Civ scenario it is most likely just you and your provocateur, with most other having little interest in the skirmish.
2. Berlin wasn't captured and turned American (minus the East and USSR, which did suffer diplomacy penalties throughout the cold war), if I could compare it to any Civ-mechanic it would be "liberating", not capture or raze. Yes, Germany was occupied, but from the beginning it was made clear it would eventually re-gain autonomy. If you read into the documents, you will find that there were arguments in favour of turning Germany into occupied farm-land, but the idea was dismissed because of its economic potential AND (!!!) because such a move would result in heavy public dissent, similar to the effects of the Versailles treaty.

Long story short, the comparison you make is lacking and imho what has occurred (though in simplified form) does apply to the Civ5 mechanics.

NB: US media dominance has a lot of influence on the western perception of its role in ww2, which is something the game does not capture in any form other than culture dominance.