testing warmonger penalty NO DECAY

True_Candyman said:
On the realism front, is everyone afraid of America right now or are they throwing insults? :p
Click to expand...

Do you see nations DoW America for bombing Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc.? Everyone's frowns upon it but that's all they do, cause they're afraid.
 
Ravellion said:
Yeah, the decay is really slow, and a major warmonger penalty will last the entire game. Once you conquer a civ, you'd better be willing to kill everyone.

I played a scrambled large North America map recently. I was stuck in the frozen tundra and only had room for one more city before bordering the Celts. Obviously I had to kill the Celts sooner or later, so I chose sooner. He was dead turn 95, I took both his cities, razed one. Greece and the Inca were still angry with me in turn 330 because of the warmonger penalty (not denouncing because of chain denouncing: the warmonger penalty tooltip still showed up in bright red for the both of them).

Thankfully, there were civs in the Mexico region that I hadn't met yet at the time, so I had some friends. Playing continents type maps probably really helps; that way you can kill someone who is on your doorstep and later on still meet some potential friends.
Click to expand...

I didn't know they changed it so that what you do before meeting civs is kept from them (for diplo purposes). I remember one game in G&K, continents, I steamrolled my landmass and was hated by everyone on the other landmass for warmongering, though there was no trace of a civ other than mine!

You can wipe out whole civs and keep everyone happy, though. Just last game, Shaka was a pain, he DoW'ed me, so I took a city and settled for peace while I waited for plastics to finish. My infantry (from kris swordsmen) made short work of him. I took him out of the game, took 5 cities for myself, and liberated the Huns. Everyone loved me.

So it is possible to remove someone from the game and still have friends, but you might need to fight to conquer and liberate. I guess that can be all the difference between being a warmonger or not while committing genocide.
 
Updates how much of a threat each player is to run amok and break everything
Click to expand...

"This is why we can't have nice things!"

In my current game, I DoW'd Sweden immediately upon first contact and captured one of their cities. About 30 turns later Gustav and I are at peace and have a DoF with multiple green modifiers. It's possible he's being deceptive, but since he's at war with two other civs and we no longer have close borders, I think he's just desperate for help.
 
If warmongering in real world existed in the way it exists in this game, America would be denounced and attacked by half of the world after attacking second "minor civilisation" (Iraq, after Afganistan), and nobody would care about their economical connections with USA nor about 9/11 and Al - Quaeda.

:crazyeye:

Currently, I am radical - I would love total removal of entire warmonger penalty. Total and complete. We have it in this game since 2010, and it has been causing nothing but frustration, problems and dozen patches trying to improve that, but apparently this entire concept is wrong and should be simply removed (or changed into something more logical)... At least, "warmonger penalty" should disappear in the way it is depicted currently - "We were best buddies and fighting with this bastard was in our interest, but apparently we decided to completely irrationally attack YOU, you Hitler! Oh wait a minute, I will return to kick your butt after ending my own 25th war"

This is illogical, stupid, not realistic and extremely frustrating:
- warmonger penalty because of defensive war (IRL - USA would be denouced by half of the world, and Allies, because it captured cities of aggressive Japan which started the war...)
- warmonger penalty with best buddies (IRL - USA would be denounced by Great Britain, also in war with Japan but withour capturing this damn cities - because betraying your extremely powerful and loyal ally because of his war success with common enemy is so damn logical)
- warmonger penalty because of war absurdly long ago (IRL - Turkey would be hated by the entire world because of capturing Byzantium capital!)
- warmonger penalty because of conquering... the common foe (IRL - France after WWII immediately denounces USA because this warmongers captured the western Germany!)
- warmonger penalty because of fighting with warmonger!

Nope. I have mod which completely disables this entire crap. In my opinion, instead of WP we should have something making much more sense and much less frustration. For example, it should activate not after capturing damn one city somewhere in the jungle, but when certain civ is REAL menace to the world - for example, it captured few capitals and is definitely going for domination victory. But all that incredible hostility of dozen civs, hostility of the entire world, because of one war? With city - state? Come on.
 
Krajzen said:
If warmongering in real world existed in the way it exists in this game, America would be denounced and attacked by half of the world after attacking second "minor civilisation" (Iraq, after Afganistan), and nobody would care about their economical connections with USA nor about 9/11 and Al - Quaeda.

:crazyeye:

Currently, I am radical - I would love total removal of entire warmonger penalty. Total and complete. We have it in this game since 2010, and it has been causing nothing but frustration, problems and dozen patches trying to improve that, but apparently this entire concept is wrong and should be simply removed (or changed into something more logical)... At least, "warmonger penalty" should disappear in the way it is depicted currently - "We were best buddies and fighting with this bastard was in our interest, but apparently we decided to completely irrationally attack YOU, you Hitler! Oh wait a minute, I will return to kick your butt after ending my own 25th war"

This is illogical, stupid, not realistic and extremely frustrating:
- warmonger penalty because of defensive war (IRL - USA would be denouced by half of the world, and Allies, because it captured cities of aggressive Japan which started the war...)
- warmonger penalty with best buddies (IRL - USA would be denounced by Great Britain, also in war with Japan but withour capturing this damn cities - because betraying your extremely powerful and loyal ally because of his war success with common enemy is so damn logical)
- warmonger penalty because of war absurdly long ago (IRL - Turkey would be hated by the entire world because of capturing Byzantium capital!)
- warmonger penalty because of conquering... the common foe (IRL - France after WWII immediately denounces USA because this warmongers captured the western Germany!)
- warmonger penalty because of fighting with warmonger!

Nope. I have mod which completely disables this entire crap. In my opinion, instead of WP we should have something making much more sense and much less frustration. For example, it should activate not after capturing damn one city somewhere in the jungle, but when certain civ is REAL menace to the world - for example, it captured few capitals and is definitely going for domination victory. But all that incredible hostility of dozen civs, hostility of the entire world, because of one war? With city - state? Come on.
Click to expand...


You know this warmonger penalty could actualy be solved pretty easy as soon as you capture 2 capitals people should be angry at you because you are trying to go for a domination victory you want to conquer the world

there is a mod that dissables the warmonger penalty try it out its cool
 
can someone answer my question?

does the penalty of capturing a city relate on how many cities the other player has?

So lets say the maya had 3 cities and i capture 2 i get a huge penalty( which happened )

if the maya had 5 cities i captured 2 it would be less? Because they had more cities
 
goremand said:
I keep hearing different justifications... 1) does the AI hate warmongering because war is evil? 2) Or because they are afraid of being eliminated by warmongerers? 3) Or because successful warmongering is indicative of a skilled player?
Click to expand...

From the AI's standpoint, it's just hating you because the code told it to. But all 3 of those reasons are probably among what the devs had in mind. All of these apply to human players.
1) Some human players like Civ as a builders game, don't like other players making it into a war game
2) While it seems silly to denounce someone you're afraid of, it can possibly cause a chain denouncement and leave your enemy with bigger problems. The logic problem here is it should be a strong civ that first denounces... in an all human game, no weak player would dare denounce a strong player without first consulting with other strong players. Not sure to what extent the AI can consult with other AI, but probably not much if any, so hoping for a chain denounce is all it can really accomplish.
3) By far the strongest reason humans would gang up on a warmonger, and probably the strongest motivator the devs had for coding in warmonger hate to the AI.
 
apocalypse105 said:
can someone answer my question?

does the penalty of capturing a city relate on how many cities the other player has?

So lets say the maya had 3 cities and i capture 2 i get a huge penalty( which happened )

if the maya had 5 cities i captured 2 it would be less? Because they had more cities
Click to expand...

Yes, the penalty is modified by how many cities a Civ has and how large the map is.

So taking one Alexander's cities of spam is a minor penalty compared to taking one of the Maya's two cities.

The problem is the penalty is the same even in the early game, making early war even less of an option.
 
apocalypse105 said:
can someone answer my question?

does the penalty of capturing a city relate on how many cities the other player has?

So lets say the maya had 3 cities and i capture 2 i get a huge penalty( which happened )

if the maya had 5 cities i captured 2 it would be less? Because they had more cities
Click to expand...
That's one of the factors. The rough breakdown is:
The fewer cities the "victim" has prior to the city being taken, the higher the penalty.
The smaller the map, the higher the penalty.
The fewer cities in the world at the time the city is taken, the higher the penalty.
Razing a city carries a higher penalty than puppeting or annexing.
The penalty is lower among civs you are friends with or who are also at war with your target at the same time.
Liberating a city has the reverse effect of capturing or puppeting it.
There is no penalty at all for taking a city that was previously taken from you.
 
Incidentally, LordG started a really productive thread for people to share their ideas for fixing the warmonger diplomacy mechanics here. It's removed from the complaints and counter-complaints you see a lot in this section of the forum, but it's probably useful to see how different posters propose to change it (and yes, I do actually have some gripes that I'd like to fix).
 
phillipwyllie said:
The tool-tip text doesn't reflect the names given to whats in the sdk source code(see Aristos's post), nor the path notes. We have 'minor', 'major', 'severe', and 'critical' threats. I've only seen 'minor', 'major', and 'extreme' used in the tool-tip. Dunno what 'extreme' refers to, I suspect that means 'critical'.
Click to expand...

Correction:

EXTREME in the tooltip refers to a threat above Major.
 
People say there's no way to remove warmonger penalty earlier, actually there is.

Liberation.

Find a weak nation that has conquered another nation and liberate some cities, this I don't know if it completely wipes your warmonger penalty, or begins to negate it, but still, it's useful.
 
TheKingOfBigOz said:
People say there's no way to remove warmonger penalty earlier, actually there is.

Liberation.

Find a weak nation that has conquered another nation and liberate some cities, this I don't know if it completely wipes your warmonger penalty, or begins to negate it, but still, it's useful.
Click to expand...
It's the opposite of whatever your penalty would be for taking the city. Though I don't know if the parts that apply to the "victim" side of the equation apply to the civ you're liberating the city for or the one you took it away from.
 
Some good posts here.... I'm slowly figuring out this war-mongering thing... I don't think it is broken or "unrealistic" ...whatever "unrealistic" means...

I think one of the keys is to be very selective about how you carry out your "warmongering".....

In my current game I decided ...for a change... to go full Honour, after Tradition..... I have started two wars ...no one has ever DOW'd me..... And because of the Honour finisher I've focussed a lot on killing off enemy units. Despite this I have had RAs on a regular basis, and DoFs and so forth with all but my two "victims"..... I only got the first early warmonger penalty after I captured a city..... but I did all I could to delay that until I figured I had largely destroyed the other civ's army....which it appears I had as the next city and then his capital fell reasonably quickly thereafter, though it wasn't without it's "nervous moments"... ;)

But I still only seem to be a minor "warmonger" and I still have Friendships....

I realize its all situational, but I think you have to be very "purposeful" about actually capturing cities....

[Also...he has/had several CS allies...one right next to my capital.... With them I decided that the best approach was to pillage their tiles and build up experience points for my ranged units by continually pummelling them, but never actually taking the CS...this seems to have worked nicely...]
 
Aristos said:
Settled.

Decay is constant, per turn, and modifiable in the XML files. But it is there.
Click to expand...

Help me read that. Did I read correctly that it decays 5 per turn and that a minor warmonger penalty is 25?
 
Is there a good rule of thumb or way of thinking about how it relates with the other equations? Is it possible to determine the decay rate, for example, of someone who tolerates warmongers? Civ5 isn't anywhere near as transparent as Civ4 when it comes to numbers. I generally like this, but there are plenty of reasons to know what these numbers are when playing a strategy game.
 
The decay is absolute as shown in the code, per turn. The value is whatever is inside the GlobalDefines.xml, seemingly 5. Can be easily modded in the xml file. That block of code runs for every AI, every turn.

I am not aware of other blocks of code where some other decay is applied, but did not check thoroughly yet either.
 
Louis XXIV said:
Is there a good rule of thumb or way of thinking about how it relates with the other equations? Is it possible to determine the decay rate, for example, of someone who tolerates warmongers? Civ5 isn't anywhere near as transparent as Civ4 when it comes to numbers. I generally like this, but there are plenty of reasons to know what these numbers are when playing a strategy game.
Click to expand...

As far as I remember from the code, the "tolerance" towards warmongering is applied when calculating the effect of actions, not for decay.

Code: 
// The value of the warmonger amount adjusted by how much this player hates warmongers
int CvDiplomacyAI::GetOtherPlayerWarmongerScore(PlayerTypes ePlayer)
{
	int iReturnValue = GetOtherPlayerWarmongerAmount(ePlayer);

	// Value at this point is from 250 (DOW) to upwards of 2000 (after capturing several cities)
	// Want final value to be about 1/20th that (Jon wanted max Opinion hit to be 100)
	// Average WarmongerHate is 5, so divide by 100 to get to 1/20th.
	iReturnValue *= GetWarmongerHate();
	iReturnValue /= 100;
	return iReturnValue;
}
 
I just find it wierd that i am the only one who thinx firaixs fails to adress this it has been a broke mechanic since the game came out and its still there.

they promised to fix it at gods and king but they didn't.

There priorities are to improve leaders who are allready strong or enchance other gameplay asspect

instead of fixing major issues
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

adan_eslavo
  • Locked
[Complex] (6-02) Improve Pledge of Protection's Impact on the Game
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
adan_eslavo
adan_eslavo
Recursive
  • Locked
New Version - 3.7.12 (August 4, 2023)
13 14 15
Replies
283
Views
46K
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
  • Locked
New BETA Version - 4.4.2 (December 31, 2023)
11 12 13
Replies
240
Views
35K
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
  • Locked
New Version - 3.8.3 (August 27, 2023)
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
13K
Recursive
Recursive
Tiberiu
My civs tier list for Deity Single Player.
2 3
Replies
51
Views
16K
beetle
beetle
Top Bottom