The warmonger penalty

that's why I said "a" major contributing factor, not "the" major contributing factor.

The warmonger penalty has changed from civilization 4 bts. Civilization 4 bts used to have warmonger unhappiness with citizens complaining about the war and saying that war was good for absolutely nothing. In civilization 5 bnw it is different because the warmonger penalty is calculated and added or subtracted whether you liberate or puppet/annex a city. The unhappiness penalties that used to be in civilization 4 bts didn't affect the troops strength like it does in civilization 5 bnw and it still affects city production like it used to.

Saying the warmonger system is stupid is a fancy way of saying you refuse to change how you play after a major game feature received a major overhaul. I routinely war without upsetting my friends because I understand how it works and I bend it to my will instead of burying my head in the sand because I don't like it and then getting angry when I get hit with the penalty.

Magma_Dragoon said:

Saying the warmonger system is stupid is a fancy way of saying you refuse to change how you play after a major game feature received a major overhaul. I routinely war without upsetting my friends because I understand how it works and I bend it to my will instead of burying my head in the sand because I don't like it and then getting angry when I get hit with the penalty.

Click to expand...

Whats stupid about the warmonger penalty is how long it lasts, and how easy it is to game. It needs more work.

Magma_Dragoon said:

Saying the warmonger system is stupid is a fancy way of saying you refuse to change how you play after a major game feature received a major overhaul. I routinely war without upsetting my friends because I understand how it works and I bend it to my will instead of burying my head in the sand because I don't like it and then getting angry when I get hit with the penalty.

Click to expand...

I started with BNW/fall patch. I have nothing to change because I got the game "as is". I am stating that it's a bandaid solution which is bad and makes no logical or historical sense. The AI is programmed to have tunnel vision instead of playing smart diplomacy and getting benefits when benefits are offered.

Magma_Dragoon said:

Saying the warmonger system is stupid is a fancy way of saying you refuse to change how you play after a major game
feature received a major overhaul.

Click to expand...

No it is not. What you are saying is that you are the sort of person who makes personal attacks on people who disagree with you.

Magma_Dragoon said:

I routinely war without upsetting my friends because I understand how it works and I bend it to my will

Click to expand...

Being easy to game doesn't mean that it is not stupid.

For the benefit of others: Suppose you have neighbors A, B and C, which are likely war partners in that order. Go to war with A, preferably with allies. Take their last but one city and make peace. Sell the city to B. You will earn a moderate amount of WM hate. Then when you go to war with B, you liberate the same city. A is probably a weakling now with hardly any cities, and you will get a major non-warmonger bonus. You can repeat the process with one of B's cities when you war with C.

Sagax said:

Say that to Persians, Carthage, Gauls and other conquered nations. Carthage would definitely praise Romans for burning them to the ground.

People like winners from a distance. Come closer and they will fear them.

Click to expand...

He means the Romans themselves, not the vanquished. The people love victories. Do you think Americans were upset when we defeated Japan in WWII? No of course not.

Sagax said:

Say that to Persians, Carthage, Gauls and other conquered nations. Carthage would definitely praise Romans for burning them to the ground.

People like winners from a distance. Come closer and they will fear them.

Click to expand...

Your examples aren't very good. The Gauls (like the Britons) were quite Romanized in the end and the Persians were never conquered by Rome, though they lost some wars. What did the Carthagians think? who cares? They were effectively wiped out. The issue was about the reaction of relatively distant third parties, so really you are supporting me. No-one suggested that the victims of ass-kicking enjoy it, though history suggests they often get over it. Moreover, being feared is not necessarily a bad thing. In real world diplomacy the fearful are more likely to give you what you want.

nokmirt said:

He means the Romans themselves, not the vanquished. The people love victories. Do you think Americans were upset when we defeated Japan in WWII? No of course not.

Click to expand...

No, I was not talking about the popular reaction in the victor country. I was talking about the popular reaction in other countries. Alexander's victories brought great prestige to him and Greek civilization generally. They still name their kids "Sikander" in Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. Popular prestige is distinct from the reaction of foreign governments. Their reaction to foreign heroes admired by their masses is tempered by self interest.

nokmirt said:

He means the Romans themselves, not the vanquished. The people love victories. Do you think Americans were upset when we defeated Japan in WWII? No of course not.

Click to expand...

That was a defensive war.

In contrast, there were plenty of Americans (e.g. Whigs) who were upset about the U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War (which was seen as an aggressive, expansionary war on the part of the U.S.).

Halcyan2 said:

That was a defensive war.

In contrast, there were plenty of Americans (e.g. Whigs) who were upset about the U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War (which was seen as an aggressive, expansionary war on the part of the U.S.).

Click to expand...

I think they were more upset by the fact the war started than that the US won. Actually the WWII example is an instructive one from a different point of view. Victory was certainly popular in the US, but there is little sign of lasting hostility from the Japanese side. That war was exceptional in a lot of ways, but it does show that it is far from inevitable that defeating a country means being hated by them forever. Another example is Western Europe. For centuries Spain, France, England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, and various German and Italian states took turns fighting each other. What happened to that vast reservoir of warmonger hate?

I don't think civ5 diplomacy makes any effort to model real diplomacy.

My main concern with the warmongering penalty is that it takes way too long a time to fade away.

For example : I'm Rome. I really want to make use of my legions and ballistas. These two UU clearly aren't here for harassment and development-hindering. They're tailored for downright conquest.

So I invade my closest neighbour and wipe him out. Now everybody hates me : that's perfectly understandable.

The trouble is that they'll keep hating me for the next 200 turns. Which means that my diplomacy is dead. I can't just sit on my early conquests, build peacefully, and as time passes be simply considered as a strong contender with a vast territory, not different from a guy who would have expanded through fast but peaceful colonization. I'll be permanently regarded as an evil warmonger.

Therefore, I won't be able to get DoF, RA, or resource trading. The only profitable interaction with AI leaders will be war. I'll be forced to keep warmongering. And having less gameplay options is always a bad thing.


This isn't that much of an issue for civs tailored for constant war, such as Zulus or Assyria.

But it is a real issue for those who have incentives to warmonger early on, while not being necessarily pushed into 100% aggressive playstyle. One has to choose between enjoying building abilities, or unique units.

When your UUs come later on (hello Sweden, Ottomans...), you can take advantage of them without incurring a decisive warmongering penalty because the world is filled ; and more cities means less penalty when conquering. Moreover, with DoF and canning diplomacy, you can call your friends into you wars and avoid the diplomatic penalty.

This option isn't available at the beginning of the game, though.

Magean said:

My main concern with the warmongering penalty is that it takes way too long a time to fade away.

For example : I'm Rome. I really want to make use of my legions and ballistas. These two UU clearly aren't here for harassment and development-hindering. They're tailored for downright conquest.

So I invade my closest neighbour and wipe him out. Now everybody hates me : that's perfectly understandable.

The trouble is that they'll keep hating me for the next 200 turns. Which means that my diplomacy is dead. I can't just sit on my early conquests, build peacefully, and as time passes be simply considered as a strong contender with a vast territory, not different from a guy who would have expanded through fast but peaceful colonization. I'll be permanently regarded as an evil warmonger.

Therefore, I won't be able to get DoF, RA, or resource trading. The only profitable interaction with AI leaders will be war. I'll be forced to keep warmongering. And having less gameplay options is always a bad thing.


This isn't that much of an issue for civs tailored for constant war, such as Zulus or Assyria.

But it is a real issue for those who have incentives to warmonger early on, while not being necessarily pushed into 100% aggressive playstyle. One has to choose between enjoying building abilities, or unique units.

When your UUs come later on (hello Sweden, Ottomans...), you can take advantage of them without incurring a decisive warmongering penalty because the world is filled ; and more cities means less penalty when conquering. Moreover, with DoF and canning diplomacy, you can call your friends into you wars and avoid the diplomatic penalty.

This option isn't available at the beginning of the game, though.

Click to expand...

You can reduce the harm of early victories by not wiping them out completely. If I capture a city that is not an OC and doesn't have a world wonder, I usually raze-and-sell. Later you may be able to earn a liberation bonus when you recapture the city. If you can get into a cooperative war early, try to engineer it so your ally takes the victim's last city. Later you get a major liberation bonus and a permanent vote in the WC when you defeat your former ally! The same effect can be sometimes be achieved with a solo war. Leave your enemy as a weakling and often one of his neighbors will be unable to resist taking him out.

I think it's all right, from difficulty perspective. But I'd be happy to see natural born killers (Shaka, Genghis, etc) react differently to war though.

Halcyan2 said:

That was a defensive war.

In contrast, there were plenty of Americans (e.g. Whigs) who were upset about the U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War (which was seen as an aggressive, expansionary war on the part of the U.S.).

Click to expand...

I misunderstood at first sorry about that.

Halcyan2 said:

That was a defensive war.

In contrast, there were plenty of Americans (e.g. Whigs) who were upset about the U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War (which was seen as an aggressive, expansionary war on the part of the U.S.).

Click to expand...

Not as many as you think. That war gave us tons of territory to explore and settle. Ask yourself this...How many Whigs were railroad men??? The Whigs were the railroad magnates, the Southern plantation owners, and the New England cotton producers. They all had their hands in deep in this, they controlled all of it. Of course they were mad for very long after the Mexican War. They wanted expansion West more than anything. The thing is everything works out in the wash. People are mad at first, I give you that. However, in the back of peoples' minds, they think to themselves...If we didn't defeat Mexico we would not have completed Manifest Destiny as fast as we did. Because of those early aggressive wars we became a world power to be reckoned with.

So as far as Civ V goes, maybe after an aggressive war you should lose happiness initially. Then it comes back over time when the memory of war dies out. At that point people concentrate more on making their nation stronger than dwelling on past mistakes. Especially when it comes to territory or cities taken. It's not like they will give it back. They simply build up and move forward like Americans did here.

qemist said:

No, I was not talking about the popular reaction in the victor country. I was talking about the popular reaction in other countries. Alexander's victories brought great prestige to him and Greek civilization generally. They still name their kids "Sikander" in Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. Popular prestige is distinct from the reaction of foreign governments. Their reaction to foreign heroes admired by their masses is tempered by self interest.

Click to expand...

I misunderstood your point at first. Sorry about that. People never seem to forget the victors, or the legend of the victors, especially in the case of Alexander. He was feared not loved by his enemies during his conquests. So, I wouldn't go so far as to say there was love and affection for him by the people he conquered. The Greeks and Macedonians themselves were upset at Alexander because they wanted to go home. Instead in many cases Alexander married his officers to various princesses of brute nations, hell bent on killing their husbands, if they could do so, with a smile on their lips. The Greeks wanted to marry Greeks, not barbarians. In the case of Alexander he made friends into enemies as well as he made war against those he wanted to conquer. He also overreached himself.

In the case of Civ, Alexander's enemies would remain upset initially. However as time winds on that slowly goes away, as it should in the game. In Civ when you conquer a city it is in resistance for so many turns. In the meantime, it is usually puppeted, so you lose happiness in that city unless there are buildings, luxuries, and wonders that offset the unhappiness. I agree with this, because the conquered should be angry until things smooth over. Soon resistance goes away and a courthouse can be built to reduce unhappiness further. That city becomes a viable part of a growing empire. That part I am fine with. The warmonger penalty in my book is a bit too harsh, but I say it does fit in with game balance. Still I don't care for it all that much. I do more than understand why it is there though.

I agree that the diplomacy works. It could be better. Many peaceful players don't like the WM penalty because they feel it punishes you too hard for successfully defending yourself. Like most attempts to rein in the player it can be worked around once you understand it.

Some ais won't make a dow on you when you get the minor warmonger penalty from capturing a city. As for the rest of the civilizations that decide to kill you or not to kill you in the 7 or 8 level, we know the ai won't when it is a minor warmonger penalty. Liberation of cities also erases warmonger penalties.

I agree that it punishes defensive wars too much. Even ones in which you conquer cities. If Attila DOW's on Korea and Korea smacks him down and takes his capital, AI in my last game, I don't hate Korea until the end of time for daring to steal Attila's capital. Oh I watch them but I still trade and have good relations. If I had done that every AI would of hated me forever.

I also think the more war like civ's should just flat out not care unless they view you as an active threat to them.

I also think the trade focused Civ's should try and profit from both sides and not cut off all trading.

Denouncing should be removed or they need to add some counter to it. I've had games where the entire world is constantly denouncing each other, yet they all still trade with each other...but not you.

Ill never forget this one game where Poland denounced me for proposing something, he and only he would get angry over. So the two(America, Egypt) of the 3 civ's I had a DoF with denounced him back, yay. But Siam was also friends with Poland so they denounced Egypt and Me. Which caused the runaway Rome to denounce Siam for denouncing Egypt. Then we had world war I for that game, with Me(England)-Rome-Poland vs. America-Egypt-Siam. (This took several turns)

Some how I ended up vs. my friends and on the side of my enemies. It was both fun and amusing and just terribly confusing nonsense.

Killing a civilization does give major consequences. One of the ais killed a civilization and then he got triple double teamed by the other civilizations.

Nashoa said:

I agree that it punishes defensive wars too much.

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

Even ones in which you conquer cities.

Click to expand...

At that point, it no longer becomes strictly "defensive."

If Attila DOW's on Korea and Korea smacks him down and takes his capital, AI in my last game, I don't hate Korea until the end of time for daring to steal Attila's capital. Oh I watch them but I still trade and have good relations. If I had done that every AI would of hated me forever.

Click to expand...

Going for the capital is a bit greedy. If you willing want to expand via "defensive wars," then instead of actually taking cities, you just get cities via the peace settlement. That way you avoid the warmonger penalties.

I also think the more war like civ's should just flat out not care unless they view you as an active threat to them.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. War-like civs might be able to handle you militarily. But the AI could also see this as you going for the same (Domination) victory condition as them. Which makes you a threat to them.

Denouncing should be removed or they need to add some counter to it. I've had games where the entire world is constantly denouncing each other, yet they all still trade with each other...but not you.

Ill never forget this one game where Poland denounced me for proposing something, he and only he would get angry over. So the two(America, Egypt) of the 3 civ's I had a DoF with denounced him back, yay. But Siam was also friends with Poland so they denounced Egypt and Me. Which caused the runaway Rome to denounce Siam for denouncing Egypt. Then we had world war I for that game, with Me(England)-Rome-Poland vs. America-Egypt-Siam. (This took several turns)

Click to expand...

Ha ha. I recently played a Huge map game with 22 civs (21 AI's and me).

For a long period of time, everyone was happy and friendly. There were blocks of 8-10 civs, almost all of whom had DoF's with each other.

Then the Denouncement storm hit.

I think the problem is that AI's are way to willing to backstab a DoF partner with a Denouncement (even if it is to side with another DoF partner). The problem is that denouncing a DoF partner causes significant diplomatic penalties, especially if it happens multiple times.

An enormous wave of denouncements came about. In the end, most civs (which previously had 4-10 DoF's) were suddenly alone (except for me, who maintained most of the DoF's) and were denouncing and being denounced by everyone else!

Eventually things got slightly better with a 3-4 DoF block, but most civs were still diplomatically isolated (denounced/denouncing everyone else) after that.