Warmonger penalty never leaves.

Sometimes a civ just gets picked on unfairly.

I've joined in the denouncement game to garner favor with the other civs who are doing it. The target civ did nothing to me but I jump on the bandwagon anyway.

You gave them a reason to do it and they've all been getting together for tea and cakes to talk about what a rotten civilization you are for thousands of years.

If you can get yourself into the tea and cakes group it works in your favor, otherwise, yeah it sucks but this isn't just some AI cheat tactic. This can go against them too.

Genocide is taken seriously in CIV.
 
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.

Actually, I'd argue that has a lot to do with the ideology mechanic.
 
Personally, I think you would be better off if you found the rest of the world first to butter then up about how mean everyone is on your continent. I played a game where I wiped out Indonesia and razed two Songhai cities in a war I started before the Renaissance. Firstly, Austria did not care and was my best friend in that game (until ideologies showed up). Secondly, I was the first to find everyone and denounced Songhai before he denounced me. So everyone bullied him despite the fact that I was the real blood crazy bully in this game.

This was Prince but it showed me that you can do whatever you want before you find the rest of the world.
 
Ok, so I decided to denounce the Indonesians and then suddenly 4 other civs denounced Indonesia the next turn. I think it worked. Hopefully, I don't get a warmonger stain if Indonesia attacks.
 
My main gripe with the warmonger penalty is it really nerfs civs with early UU (Huns etc). In my most recent game I attacked 1 civ early, got labelled a warmonger for taking 2 of his cities and have spent the rest of the game fending off attacks from basically all other civs with no way of repairing relations (despite lots of effort)
 
The issue is not really simple. i spawned now 2 games in a row next to Shaka, both times he first forward settles and then starts walking his army around my boarders, so both times i dowed him. Both times i conquered a few cities and razed them and acceted each time his settlement for peace. But each game it lasts like into industrial until diplo effect wears off.... Something should be done here without giving everybody a free pass. As long as you play peacefully and only war occasionally without going on a conquering rampage, the diplo hit should be lessened.
The AI seems to outright troll you, same games, another example, pledge to protect a CS, have a sizeable army. Shaka demands tribute and rubs it in my face, i can denounce but he doesn't care, if i dow him, the world will hate me for protecting my CS Ally :confused:
 
I wish there was some credit given for going to war against antagonistic civs.

like, when I warn Japan about settling new cities too close to me and then they drop a 1-tile city that utterly blocks my naval harbor, what am I supposed to do?

likewise when I ask the Celts to stop sending me missionaries and I suddenly find a dozen Great Prophets tromping through my countryside.
 
We really need the game to grasp the concept of a Just War.

Alternatively, they could make that the new American UA: Just War, avoid warmonger penalties, even when DOW'ing friends.
 
My main gripe with the warmonger penalty is it really nerfs civs with early UU (Huns etc). In my most recent game I attacked 1 civ early, got labelled a warmonger for taking 2 of his cities and have spent the rest of the game fending off attacks from basically all other civs with no way of repairing relations (despite lots of effort)

This happened to me playing Assyria, but I'm here to tell you there is hope! Around the time of Ideologies you can eventually shed the warmonger title. Two Civs are now friendly with me after being Neutral and Guarded. Of course, during the intervening time period I had to schmooze them big time. Boni from recently trading, WC proposal support, proposing something they like, sharing ideology, and denouncing the same civs have proven to overcome the warmonger label to the point where it doesn't show up anymore.
 
I wish there was some credit given for going to war against antagonistic civs.

like, when I warn Japan about settling new cities too close to me and then they drop a 1-tile city that utterly blocks my naval harbor, what am I supposed to do?

likewise when I ask the Celts to stop sending me missionaries and I suddenly find a dozen Great Prophets tromping through my countryside.
The game is never and should never exempt you from the penalty for declaring war based solely on the fact that someone was in your way. In the situation you're in, if Japan is being that much of a d-bag to you, chances are they are to another AI as well. Use that, make DoFs with other civs that don't like Oda and then declare war. You won't take a hit for doing so with your friends, and you can forget the one who aren't your friends.

But this would require people to give more than a fart in a tornado for the diplomacy game.
 
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.

I feel that there should be an in game mechanic that let you does something like what the US did in WWII.
If you've ever gotten Attila next door (and it seems to happen to me every game), you'll know that every 30 turns you'll have to deal with a DoW because "They covet lands you currently own"
I usually play the AI as if it were a human being (which, to be honest, is how it should act, shouldn't it?); I forgive the first DoW, but if they backstab me or attack me after I give them a generous deal by offering peace, I show no mercy, usually go all the way and wipe them out, or at least off the continent.

Now,the problem I have is that, especially for aggressive Civs, there isn't any way to cut them down to size without diplomatic penalties, other than being completely defensive. I think that there should be:

1. The ability to agree on longer peace treaties

2. Not have the treaties be enforced by the game, but instead, if you break a peace treaty (or agreement, shall we call it?), then you both open yourself up to huge diplomatic hits from other nations, AND the nation you declared against gets a greatly reduced penalty, even if they completely wipe you out.

3. More diplomatic options when suing for peace, like
"Destroy all barracks" "Can only build new military units with permission" "Military units can't be within 5 tiles of our borders" "Cannot use iron" (all with certain turn limits, of course)
And also, being able to take land without taking cities would help.

(These ideas are off the top of my head, and are only examples. Don't attack specific ones too hard)
 
3. More diplomatic options when suing for peace, like
"Destroy all barracks" "Can only build new military units with permission" "Military units can't be within 5 tiles of our borders" "Cannot use iron" (all with certain turn limits, of course)
And also, being able to take land without taking cities would help.

(These ideas are off the top of my head, and are only examples. Don't attack specific ones too hard)
I really like this one. Impose conditions like the post-WWII ban on Japan having an air force or something.

I think in general, this could be handled by adding a bunch more resolutions to the WC options. Like, rather than Nuclear Disarmament, make it so that you can ban any particular type of unit, with nukes only being one part of that. And have the sanctions work against specific civs.
 
I really like this one. Impose conditions like the post-WWII ban on Japan having an air force or something.


The problem I couldn't work around when I made this post was that such bans would make the Civ in question weak to attacks from others.
Now in the real world, (I'm Japanese, this might be a bit biased because I'm just thinking about what happened in the outcome of WWII ;)) something along these lines happens:
Country is beaten -> Winner comes in, half-occupies country -> Winner imposes restrictions on military, but also uses own military as temporary defense

Now, in the game, there would be no way to force the winner into Step 3 should another Civ attack, because the benefits of keeping somebody that attacked you alive just aren't big enough. Also, this might make End-War diplomacy a bit too complicated, like:
[No-attack agreement for 45 turns, loser disbands all military, loser gets 50% penalty when constructing new units, winner gets open borders, winner gets diplo hit if loser civ is attacked and isn't managed to defend]

But still, I think it would be better than the current system where the only thing you can do to be diplomatically positive is to beat back and not retaliate.
 
The problem I couldn't work around when I made this post was that such bans would make the Civ in question weak to attacks from others.
Now in the real world, (I'm Japanese, this might be a bit biased because I'm just thinking about what happened in the outcome of WWII ;)) something along these lines happens:
Country is beaten -> Winner comes in, half-occupies country -> Winner imposes restrictions on military, but also uses own military as temporary defense

Now, in the game, there would be no way to force the winner into Step 3 should another Civ attack, because the benefits of keeping somebody that attacked you alive just aren't big enough. Also, this might make End-War diplomacy a bit too complicated, like:
[No-attack agreement for 45 turns, loser disbands all military, loser gets 50% penalty when constructing new units, winner gets open borders, winner gets diplo hit if loser civ is attacked and isn't managed to defend]

But still, I think it would be better than the current system where the only thing you can do to be diplomatically positive is to beat back and not retaliate.

You'd probably use the defensive pact mechanics for it.

But really, the problem with mimicking these kinds of real-world scenarios is that the most important piece of any of these treaties is that the country was no longer being run by the a-holes who started the mess in the first place. That can't really work in Civ because you or the AI is still going to be running the mess afterward.
 
I hate how Sweden asked me to DoW one of their enemies and when I agree to join the war on their side they call me a warmonger. Sure I am technically a warmonger, but should not be in the eyes of the Swedes. To them I should be a well respected buddy ol pal, not a warmonger. That has to be my worst pet peeve about this game.
 
Side Bar: Do you suffer a diplomatic hit with unknown civilizations for being a warmonger or do you start off as being neutral?
 
Side Bar: Do you suffer a diplomatic hit with unknown civilizations for being a warmonger or do you start off as being neutral?

You start out unknown.

However, what some people here are referring to as the "warmonger penalty" is actually not the warmonger penalty. The warmonger penalty is just a number that tracks how many cities you've taken over relative to the size of the map, the empires you took them from and how long ago you did that. It's the AI's way of doing the logical thing that a human player does, to take a look at a runaway civilization and avoid making deals with them because they're prone to takeovers.

What the OP of this thread is talking about (and what many others are totally ignoring) is the effect of chain denunciations, which work like this:
You do som
  1. ething on turn 100 to piss off America (could be warmongering, could be literally anything else).
  2. America denounces you on turn 101. Civs who are friends with America and not you now like you less because America denounced you, and will like you less for the next 30 turns.
  3. France, friends with America, denounces you on turn 102 because that denunciation was enough to put them over the limit where they denounce you again.
  4. On turn 131, America's denunciation expires. However, the fact that France denounced you is still in effect since it started one turn later than America.
  5. America now sees that France is denouncing you, and likes you less, putting them over the threshold to denounce you.
  6. France's denunciation expires, they see th
at America denounced you...

...and so on, until either America and France have a falling out or until you manage to repair your diplomatic relationships with one or the other in spite of the denunciations so that the other is not pushed over the edge when their denunciation expires. You're totally not stuck with the warmonger penalty, but you're almost always under the effect of a denunciation from someone, which makes it look like you're under the warmonger penalty forever.

This can also lead to you getting a negative hit even if France didn't know you when you were warmongering. If you've met America and Siam, you take out Siam, America denounces you, but America HAS met France, France may well denounce you as soon as you meet, because you're the d-bag America's been talking about. But the actual warmonger penalty qua warmonger penalty, you won't have (and generally don't have unless you deserve it).
 
So I guess the best way to be a militaristic civilization is by defeating the first civ you meet as soon as possible before you meet any more. Then again, happiness would be an issue, especially if you choose the autocracy ideology and you get civil resistance.
 
So I guess the best way to be a militaristic civilization is by defeating the first civ you meet as soon as possible before you meet any more. Then again, happiness would be an issue, especially if you choose the autocracy ideology and you get civil resistance.
That's really the way to do it as the Huns.
 
I eliminated France early and all other civs except Brazil (who was at war with one of the other AI) kept on declaring war on me and denouncing me over four centuries. I somehow survived all their attacks, but it is beginning to wear on me, since I am Portugal and my UA relies on trade.

The problem was, even though I didn't seek out the other AI, they found me, so the warmonger hate built up quickly.
 
Top Bottom