Why the warmonger penalty is unrealistic...

SemperFi2382 · Dec 28, 2013

qemist said:
Your reply assumes that the human player can just kill an AI whenever he wants. What does that about the AI's war making ability? What should be stopping the player from doing that is an effective system of alliances and an AI that wages war well enough.

You are more or less making my point for me. If there is no warmonger penalty, or even a mild one, there then would be zero game mechanics preventing a player from doing as they please.

qemist said:
Why not? why does war have to be the easy route?

Have you fought the AI before? Wars are simply tedious, but not hard against an AI. It is much easier to use war for gain in civ, and the only thing remotely deterring a player from doing so frequently is the warmonger penalty.

Wars are the easy route in this game. Without a more robust combat AI, or more logical alliances, the player is free to take what they want.

Ll1442 said:
where do u see how big the penalty is?

Just hover over the city during a war.

Barghaest said:
There is no warmonger penalty for cities acquired through peace deals. I've played quite a few games where I kept an eye on the warmonger penalty and "gifted" cities give none. DoWing and capturing a city are the only two sources of it that I have seen (and it doesn't matter if you puppet, annex or raze the warmonger penalty is the same, only the unhappiness is modified).

Good to know, albeit it's exploitable to be honest (seeing as it's rather easy to get the AI to roll over and die), so I tend to not take cities that way unless I'm liberating them for myself or an ally.

qemist · Dec 28, 2013

SemperFi2382 said:
You are more or less making my point for me.

No.

SemperFi2382 said:
If there is no warmonger penalty, or even a mild one, there then would be zero game mechanics preventing a player from doing as they please.

Huh? how about this for a game mechanic: the other players pursuing their own agendas. When your opponent plays well you cannot "do as you please".

SemperFi2382 said:
Have you fought the AI before? Wars are simply tedious, but not hard against an AI.

Not all players agree. I lose wars frequently. Especially early ones where I get carpeted.

SemperFi2382 said:
It is much easier to use war for gain in civ, and the only thing remotely deterring a player from doing so frequently is the warmonger penalty.

So you're making my point for me. The warmonger penalty is a fig leaf for the AI's weakness.

SemperFi2382 said:
Wars are the easy route in this game. Without a more robust combat AI, or more logical alliances, the player is free to take what they want.

So why not have a more robust combat AI or more logical alliances? The former may be beyond Firaxis' ability but the latter shouldn't be.

GhostSalsa · Dec 28, 2013

Talcove said:
Every time someone such as yourself talks about how much they don't like the warmonger penalties, it sounds like they would just be content if every civ on the map would just lay back and do absolutely nothing as you rolled into their territory with units, conquering all of their land, and their allies land. Simply put, this is not just a war game - this is a strategy game. This is a game where you have to balance multiple features and systems in order to achieve victory. .

Thank you for this bit which echoes the point I want to address other recent replies as well.

Removing the warmonger penalty has nothing to do with whether the player can conquer blindly as much as they want. It's totally besides the subject of ensuring the player is "policed" into using the game's non-war mechanics. The player already can conquer their own continent and not worry about the warmonger penalty. As long as they do it with pre-rennaissance tech-path-located ranged units, namely: CBs, XBs, Keshik/Camel.

That isn't what I'm trying to get out of the game and at this point I don't expect the penalty-defenders to be able to envision what I am trying to get.

I don't expect the penalty-defenders to understand why it matters that ranged units can always take over a continent but non-tech-path units can't.

I don't expect the penalty-defenders to understand why it's meaningless to defend the warmonger penalty as a player-policing measure and then blithely name known exploits and workarounds the most obvious of which is "just play on Chieftain and roll over the AI."

I don't expect the penalty-defenders to understand that I want to be able to play on Immortal, travel off of the science part of the tech-tree, exploit a renaissance unique unit for a limited conquest in a war that will actually be challenging, incorporate this into my win strategy by trading my unit production hammers for stolen wonders rather than merely harassing the enemy, and not encounter a totally arbitrary and pointless red-flag from the game design that trashes the diplomacy mechanic.

Pointless because I've already ensure I can't just roll over the AI by traveling off the science part of the tech tree. I'm already policing myself by avoiding science-path ranged units. I'm already ensuring I will still need to blend all the other game mechanics including diplomacy for my late game, by weakening my mid-game. I'm explicitly designing a challenging situation and what the warmonger penalty polices is my ability to play this way.

GhostSalsa · Dec 28, 2013

Now I'll reiterate one more time why I keep bringing up the Winged Hussar. The Winged Hussar is an amazing unit, with both extra strength, and extra movement, and a free promotion, and an extra 15XP from the Ducal Stables to make March very easy to get - probably the most well-bonused UU in the game aside from the Keshik - and it looks great, and it creates a game effect that no other unit does. It's amazing and fun to play with.

But it's only 14 on the UU thread because there's no such thing as a lancer domination strategy. There's no such thing as a lancer domination strategy because unlike Chivalry (Keshik/Camel Archer) and Machinery (xbows), the Metallurgy tech is 1. not a freebee on the path to S.Theory and 2. (the focus of this thread) not accessible before World Congress and meeting other civs, meaning the player has to discontinue capturing capitals until ideology kicks in due to being outside of the two "warmonger penalty exploit zones".

*I* see this as a limit on gameplay. I can conquer my continent as much as I want as long as I do it with the same tech and policy path I'd play to win via turtling. I can do "whatever I want" as long as what I want is to beeline Scientific Theory every single game.

*I* think there's something missing from the game when the choice between top of tree and bottom of tree is not a choice at all, because the top of the tree can do any victory condition and the bottom just leads to headaches via overly tight penalties that police game strategies (ranged unit rush) that I'm not even interested in.

Basically I'm being policed for the over-powerdness of your tech path preference.

The warmonger penalty is only one of many things that contributes to the dominance of the science / turtling strategy, but it's the only one where forum complaints for more player freedom are met with "you need to be policed because just want to roll over the map." Comments which are in essence completely myopic by not considering play conditions using unconventional tech and social policy paths - because to many people on this forum, using different tech paths is not valid at all.

GhostSalsa · Dec 28, 2013

Barghaest said:
I make quite good use of Aztec Jaguars to cripple my opponents - or boost myself - early in the game without taking a single city.

Thank you for naming a UU that the player doesn't even have to tech to. How does your point hold up for non-siege units you have to tech to, namely swordman units? See my post above. It wouldn't ever make sense to "use a Legion just to cripple opponents," because to get Legions before they are obsolete you have to invest in the Ironworks tech -delaying Education.

The entire premise of being able to choose your own tech tree path, rather than scientific progress being automatic, is that the player should be able to benefit from military-tech-placed units, and by extension their UU equivalents, by taking cities and wonders, not just tread water or stunt an AI. We know BNW penalizes early conquering just to make the late-game interesting, we shouldn't glance over or forget that this has further nullified the entire point of a tech tree (multiple valid paths).

Barghaest · Dec 28, 2013

GhostSalsa said:
Thank you for naming a UU that the player doesn't even have to tech to. How does your point hold up for non-siege units you have to tech to, namely swordman units? See my post above. It wouldn't ever make sense to "use a Legion just to cripple opponents," because to get Legions before they are obsolete you have to invest in the Ironworks tech -delaying Education.

The entire premise of being able to choose your own tech tree path, rather than scientific progress being automatic, is that the player should be able to benefit from military-tech-placed units, and by extension their UU equivalents, by taking cities and wonders, not just tread water or stunt an AI. We know BNW penalizes early conquering just to make the late-game interesting, we shouldn't glance over or forget that this has further nullified the entire point of a tech tree (multiple valid paths).

I just used them as an example... and I never beeline education. That's only necessary on difficulties above King where the AI starts with a tech advantage. On King and below you can research WTF you want without being out teched. Making use of any unit before it is obsolete is a challenge in the regular game (one of my many complaints about default game speeds). Even on Marathon when I upgrade existing units after unlocking a new unit type I might get a few dozen or so turns of use out of it before I need to upgrade them again (less if I have to cross the map to find a war).

And BNW hasn't nullified the point of the tech tree... the players have (long before G&K even). I still make use of the entire tech tree because I'm not compelled to race to remain tech leader. If I fall behind, I'll catch up when I get spies or I'll attack the tech leader to knock him down a few pegs (all without being perma-hated by every other AI). When I played Rome I DID use Legions to do just that. While I was concentrating on the bottom part of the tree a few other AIs raced along the top and started nabbing wonders.... so I flexed some Roman muscle and made good use of my UUs - Legion and Ballista - to make short work of their horsemen and spearmen and reduce their ability to tech somewhat by razing a few of their larger cities.

Of course, this is all semi-moot. I could care less if they added in an option (or someone created a mod) to reduce/remove warmongering penalties. I have no issues with them and feel they are quite balanced for my style of play, so I'd never use either (Fairly easy to mod anyway... just change a few settings in CIV5GlobalDiplomacyAIDefines.xml), what I feel isn't balanced is the core pace of the game so I designed a mod to fix that. Now I have no issues making use of UUs since it takes a few hundred turns to tech through an era.... so NOW when I play Rome, I get to make use of Legions for quite a long while.

GhostSalsa · Dec 28, 2013

Barghaest said:
And BNW hasn't nullified the point of the tech tree... the players have (long before G&K even). I still make use of the entire tech tree because I'm not compelled to race to remain tech leader. If I fall behind, I'll catch up when I get spies or I'll attack the tech leader to knock him down a few pegs (all without being perma-hated by every other AI).

yes you and I like to play the same way - I love to avoid front spot in tech. Only I liked G&K better because the AI still had teeth on Emperor and even King, so you could really slow down your tech path and get good mid-game era wars - like intentionally finish all techs in each era before moving on, was one playstyle I used. But in BNW the AI never gets good armies up on Emperor, so I'm enjoying my games a lot more in Immortal. But that increases the imperative of conquering good capitals when going off the science-path to build non-ranged units - because you will never catch back up in tech to make your own wonders.

Browd · Dec 28, 2013

Barghaest said:
Of course, this is all semi-moot. I could care less if they added in an option (or someone created a mod) to reduce/remove warmongering penalties.

There are already 2 such mods in the Steam Workshop.

Less Warmonger Hate: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=192953436
Cannot Become a Warmonger: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=109376170

Playing a few games with these mods and reporting back to the group might help advance this debate.

Is the problem the warmonger mechanic itself? Try the second mod and see whether the game feels unbalanced. [I've done so, and found it made domination way too easy, but you may disagree.]

Or is the problem just the particular values associated with city capture, liberation, denunciations, etc. If so, try the first mod, which modifies:

Conquering cities give 40% less warmonger penalty.
Warmonger penalty decay per turn is increased 40%.
Denunciations, City Liberations and Capital Captures weight 30% less in leader's opinion.

EDIT: And if you want to see the specific changes made in the first mod, you can compare values in that mod's .sql file (you can open it with any text editor) with the base BNW values in C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Sid Meier's Civilization V\Assets\DLC\Expansion2\Gameplay\XML\AI\GlobalDiplomacyAIDefines.xml

SemperFi2382 · Dec 28, 2013

qemist said:
No.

Excellent counter-point. :rolleyes:

qemist said:
Huh? how about this for a game mechanic: the other players pursuing their own agendas. When your opponent plays well you cannot "do as you please".

Obviously we are not playing the same game. There is no such mechanic in the game, but I'm sensing a theme here.

qemist said:
Not all players agree. I lose wars frequently. Especially early ones where I get carpeted.

This statement boggles my mind. A few ranged units can pretty much hold the AI off until much more potent units become available. If you're losing that badly in tech, or getting rolled that badly then you're doing something wrong.

qemist said:
So you're making my point for me. The warmonger penalty is a fig leaf for the AI's weakness.

No. Again, you're using non-existent fixes to defend your point.

qemist said:
So why not have a more robust combat AI or more logical alliances? The former may be beyond Firaxis' ability but the latter shouldn't be.

Again, you're simply skirting around agreeing with my point by saying there needs to be a fix to a fundamental flaw with the combat AI and diplomacy.

I'm not sure what's so hard to comprehend. Removing or lessening the warmonger penalty removes the only obstacle to a player using war without repercussions. Until there is a substantial improvement to the AI, you can't remove or lessen the only game mechanic trying to impede the player that there is.

So, let's break my point down to Sesame Street level for you.

AI terrible at war.
Human good at war.
AI use warmonger penalty as crutch.
Removing crutch bad.

Stop using non-existent mechanics, non-existent AI fixes, etc to defend the fact that removing the warmonger penalty would make the game even more unbalanced. If the AI wasn't so bad, then this wouldn't even be an issue to begin with.

Playing without the penalty makes the game incredibly boring, and only serves to further highlight the problems that are unlikely to ever get fixed. Clearly my point is lost on you because removing the mechanic accomplishes nothing in fixing what's broken. Everyone already knows the AI has issues. I'm only defending keeping the only mechanic the AI has in its defense as it is. When you fix the core issue, then we can properly talk about if the warmonger penalty needs to be changed.

Barghaest · Dec 28, 2013

GhostSalsa said:
yes you and I like to play the same way - I love to avoid front spot in tech. Only I liked G&K better because the AI still had teeth on Emperor and even King, so you could really slow down your tech path and get good mid-game era wars - like intentionally finish all techs in each era before moving on, was one playstyle I used. But in BNW the AI never gets good armies up on Emperor, so I'm enjoying my games a lot more in Immortal. But that increases the imperative of conquering good capitals when going off the science-path to build non-ranged units - because you will never catch back up in tech to make your own wonders.

I've tweaked the difficulties in my mod... on my current Prince & King settings I'm seldom tech leader... and there isn't really any runaways. Last game I played on King a different empire was dominant each era. Granted I could've probably won an early domination victory because the AI has no tactics beyond carpet zergs but two things kept me from rolling over the entire map - 1) I was testing my changes and a quick win wouldn't have let me see all the effects and 2) I enjoy carving out my empire slowly and feel no need to rush a win.... the warmongering penalty was a non-factor.

After a certain point (usually by late Medieval/early Renaissance) my empire is always self-sufficient so I have no need of trade and my military can hold off multiple AI rushes simultaneously. The AI denouncing me just hurts them... THEY are the ones who need trade routes to maintain an economy and THEY are the ones who need luxury trades to avoid revolt (matter of fact a trick I've used since Civ IV was trading luxuries to AI until they grew too large then refusing to trade and watching their civilization attempt to deal with barbarian rebels - hours of entertainment!).

Wodan · Dec 28, 2013

Seems to me the warmonger penalty can't be removed from the game. It's essentially a part of base mechanics, in the AI dip modifiers.

What I don't like is that it seems too over-reaching. A couple of early game incidents will bias the entire world for the next 3,000 years. Really? Even when someone DOWs you, but you manage to turn the tables and take them out? Yeah.

Here's a RW example: Carthage DOW's Rome, Rome conquers and takes Carthage. Later, Carthage is conquered by the Arabs. 1,500 years after that, does the world still hate Italy? In the game, yes. In the real world, it's "Carthage? what are you talking about? Are you nuts?"

Anyway I think everyone would agree the AI could stand to be improved. Until then, it might be nice to back off the warmonger penalty and make it expire faster. There's no reason to continue to penalize a player hundreds of turns later. A large immediate penalty? Sure.

happyturtle · Dec 28, 2013

Wodan said:
Here's a RW example: Carthage DOW's Rome, Rome conquers and takes Carthage. Later, Carthage is conquered by the Arabs. 1,500 years after that, does the world still hate Italy? In the game, yes. In the real world, it's "Carthage? what are you talking about? Are you nuts?"

Anyway I think everyone would agree the AI could stand to be improved. Until then, it might be nice to back off the warmonger penalty and make it expire faster. There's no reason to continue to penalize a player hundreds of turns later. A large immediate penalty? Sure.

Yes, this. :agree:

GhostSalsa said:
Now I'll reiterate one more time why I keep bringing up the Winged Hussar. The Winged Hussar is an amazing unit, with both extra strength, and extra movement, and a free promotion, and an extra 15XP from the Ducal Stables to make March very easy to get - probably the most well-bonused UU in the game aside from the Keshik - and it looks great, and it creates a game effect that no other unit does. It's amazing and fun to play with.

But it's only 14 on the UU thread because there's no such thing as a lancer domination strategy. There's no such thing as a lancer domination strategy because unlike Chivalry (Keshik/Camel Archer) and Machinery (xbows), the Metallurgy tech is 1. not a freebee on the path to S.Theory and 2. (the focus of this thread) not accessible before World Congress and meeting other civs, meaning the player has to discontinue capturing capitals until ideology kicks in due to being outside of the two "warmonger penalty exploit zones".

*I* see this as a limit on gameplay. I can conquer my continent as much as I want as long as I do it with the same tech and policy path I'd play to win via turtling. I can do "whatever I want" as long as what I want is to beeline Scientific Theory every single game.

*I* think there's something missing from the game when the choice between top of tree and bottom of tree is not a choice at all, because the top of the tree can do any victory condition and the bottom just leads to headaches via overly tight penalties that police game strategies (ranged unit rush) that I'm not even interested in.

Basically I'm being policed for the over-powerdness of your tech path preference.

The warmonger penalty is only one of many things that contributes to the dominance of the science / turtling strategy, but it's the only one where forum complaints for more player freedom are met with "you need to be policed because just want to roll over the map." Comments which are in essence completely myopic by not considering play conditions using unconventional tech and social policy paths - because to many people on this forum, using different tech paths is not valid at all.

And I agree with this too. :agree:

I mean, come on, if people want to just roll over the map (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that!) they can just drop a difficulty level and do that all they want. I'm still struggling to win at King consistently. If I go for a peaceful win, it's easy. If I do any warring at all, I can't ever have diplo again. It's not like I haven't read the guides and tried to use them - I have! But the bottom line is, I'm just not that great a player, and I'm not able to play a perfect game. I know Immortal/Deity players are fairly well represented in a place like this, but of the 8 or 9 friends I have that also play Civ, not one of them plays above King. I imagine that's a lot more typical of the wider Civ playing community.

Browd said:
There are already 2 such mods in the Steam Workshop.

Less Warmonger Hate: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=192953436

Cannot Become a Warmonger: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=109376170

Playing a few games with these mods and reporting back to the group might help advance this debate.

Is the problem the warmonger mechanic itself? Try the second mod and see whether the game feels unbalanced. [I've done so, and found it made domination way too easy, but you may disagree.]

Or is the problem just the particular values associated with city capture, liberation, denunciations, etc. If so, try the first mod, which modifies:

Conquering cities give 40% less warmonger penalty.

Warmonger penalty decay per turn is increased 40%.

Denunciations, City Liberations and Capital Captures weight 30% less in leader's opinion.

EDIT: And if you want to see the specific changes made in the first mod, you can compare values in that mod's .sql file (you can open it with any text editor) with the base BNW values in C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Sid Meier's Civilization V\Assets\DLC\Expansion2\Gameplay\XML\AI\GlobalDiplomacyAIDefines.xml

Thank you. I will try the first mod. :thanx:

Magma_Dragoon · Dec 28, 2013

GhostSalsa said:
Now I'll reiterate one more time why I keep bringing up the Winged Hussar. The Winged Hussar is an amazing unit, with both extra strength, and extra movement, and a free promotion, and an extra 15XP from the Ducal Stables to make March very easy to get - probably the most well-bonused UU in the game aside from the Keshik - and it looks great, and it creates a game effect that no other unit does. It's amazing and fun to play with.

I killed Germany, Celts, and Carthage with my winged hussars. Only after Carthage made peace with the Haile was she able to bribe him to attack me with her huge gold stack. I nuked him to pieces and our mutual bff the Maya still love me. You are bad at manipulating the AI to avoid penalties and you should feel bad.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=367268&d=1388253853

SemperFi2382 · Dec 28, 2013

Barghaest said:
2) I enjoy carving out my empire slowly and feel no need to rush a win.... the warmongering penalty was a non-factor.

I agree with this for so many reasons. If you want to win in the most efficient way each and every time, it's go tall, TARF, etc, and so the game gets boring real fast. When you start playing to enjoy the game, even if it means drawing the game out a bit, you start getting to play with units, explore the nuances of trade as a weapon, and not focus solely on abusing the dumb combat AI.

Barghaest said:
After a certain point (usually by late Medieval/early Renaissance) my empire is always self-sufficient so I have no need of trade and my military can hold off multiple AI rushes simultaneously. The AI denouncing me just hurts them... THEY are the ones who need trade routes to maintain an economy and THEY are the ones who need luxury trades to avoid revolt (matter of fact a trick I've used since Civ IV was trading luxuries to AI until they grew too large then refusing to trade and watching their civilization attempt to deal with barbarian rebels - hours of entertainment!).

Not just this, but using diplomacy as a weapon in more than just war. Using a hated proposal to ensure another equally hated proposal passes, using strategic resources and gold to prop up weaker civs, and other less efficient means to achieve victory.

King Jason · Dec 28, 2013

SemperFi2382 said:
What's really stopping you? It's the fact they're saying the warmonger penalty is making the game "too hard" when in fact it's keeping the game from being "too easy". The bottom line is that if the warmonger penalty is that much of an issue, then maybe the player should have not gone the easy route and used so much war that the penalty stacked up that high to begin with.

qemist said:
Why not? why does war have to be the easy route?

Because war IS the easy route. In the entirety of the history of civ, war has ALWAYS been the easy route. Stacks of doom or 1upt, the computer pales in comparison to a human mind. Upping a difficulty level never helps with that either, it just gives you more cannon fodder to deal with.

Unlike the peaceful conditions, where upping the difficulty makes it significantly easier to compete some other victories - but even then, if you're losing one of the other victories - conquer your opponent.

I personally very much enjoy the warmonger penalties because it adds more difficulty to conquering. Rather than allowing a player to reach a certain tech and then steamroll the AIs one by one, it creates bloqs against you if you begin to do that.

It makes it harder to manage your steamrolling machine because otherwise it'd just be too damn easy.

Paszczak · Dec 28, 2013

I don't agree with the notion that warmongering is the easiest way to play the game and the only thing stopping the player is warmongering hate.

Early war has always had a huge opportunity cost in form of :c5production:

,

and

that is spent on military instead of developing the empire. And then there's always some random obstacles, like neighbour finishing the Great Wall, neighbour taking Oligarchy and defensive religious beliefs etc. So if I spend first 60 or 100 turns of the game building an army and fail to conquer my neighbour with it I've just shot yourself in the foot and may not recover. And if I do manage to pull off an early conquest I'll be stuck with a bunch of cities with pillaged tiles and destroyed buildings, not to mention the :c5unhappy:

and (-negative) :c5gold:

. And the severe diplo hit I get on top of all this is bad because it's really counter-productive. If I get denounced by entire world for conquering one capital then they leave me with no choice but to conquer them all. Good job :goodjob:

.

On the other hand if I decide to turtle for 200 turns and then go on a killing spree with promoted Bombers/Artillery/Machine Guns or do a "stealth bomber rush" then it will be much easier because the AI handles late game wars poorly and I can take city after city with little resistance. However the warmonger hate will be once again pointless because at this point I got all the :c5gold:

and

from the AI that I wanted so I no longer need diplomacy for anything.

The reason why warmongering penalty in its current form gets so much flak is because it simply doesn't work - it doesn't make the warmonger stop warmongering. It makes him warmonger even more.

qemist · Dec 28, 2013

Wodan said:
Anyway I think everyone would agree the AI could stand to be improved. Until then, it might be nice to back off the warmonger penalty and make it expire faster. There's no reason to continue to penalize a player hundreds of turns later. A large immediate penalty? Sure.

Good suggestion. Also the penalty should be reduced or non-existent when the player is not the aggressor. I rarely start a war and it irks me that I get penalized for defending myself effectively.

Paszczak said:
I don't agree with the notion that warmongering is the easiest way to play the game and the only thing stopping the player is warmongering hate.

Early war has always had a huge opportunity cost in form of , and that is spent on military instead of developing the empire.

Exactly. Even if you succeed in taking out a neighbor or two you can fall badly behind in tech. You may struggle when your highly promoted compies come up against rifles and gats.

Magma_Dragoon · Dec 28, 2013

Being attacked should not give the player license to wipe an AI off the map. I'd be ok if the warmonger penalty did not apply to crimes against the Zulu. They need to be exterminated.

qemist · Dec 28, 2013

Magma_Dragoon said:
Being attacked should not give the player license to wipe an AI off the map.

Assertions taste better with supporting argument. AFAIK you get a penalty if you take out *any* of his (or his CS allies) cities, not just if your wipe him out.

Magma_Dragoon said:
I'd be ok if the warmonger penalty did not apply to crimes against the Zulu. They need to be exterminated.

Shaka seems to be the new Montezuma.

Magma_Dragoon · Dec 28, 2013

qemist said:
Good suggestion. Also the penalty should be reduced or non-existent when the player is not the aggressor. I rarely start a war and it irks me that I get penalized for defending myself effectively.

Implying that by "defending" you are conquering the player who attacked you, so I said

Magma_Dragoon said:
Being attacked should not give the player license to wipe an AI off the map.

And then you said

qemist said:
Assertions taste better with supporting argument. AFAIK you get a penalty if you take out *any* of his (or his CS allies) cities, not just if your wipe him out.

And I don't know what you mean by that :confused:

The assertion I'm making is that diplomacy should not boil down to trying to get an AI to declare war so you can take all it's cities. Furthermore, the warmonger hit for declaring war is very small. Taking cities is where most of the penalty lies.

Why the warmonger penalty is unrealistic...

Mitten Marauder

Prince

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

King

Emperor

Dilettante

Mitten Marauder

King

Deity

Mrs GrumpyOldCivver

Reploid

Mitten Marauder

Fleece-bearer

Warlord

Prince

Reploid

Prince

Reploid

Similar threads