So 2 Eras later iam still a Warmoger..?

So Maria Theresia placed Salzburg really aggresiv towords me and stole some of my luxresources. I decided to take the City since its really far away from her Capital and it was unprotected. Everyone exept Venice (Who is my friend) got a warmoger penalty with me. Now iam in the renisaunce and they still hate me for taking Salzburg.. There are all Neutral with me but i cant even get Open Boarder. And 2 of them are Shaka and Napoleon who are at war with Indonesia..
Also i trade with everyone since i got many extra Lux.
So Warmoger hate Warmoger.. and Peacefull hates Warmoger.. Its like there is no use for War in this game anymore..
Also i never see the Ais denouce each other ever. In G&K they did it like madness even in the early game.

I really do hate that warmonger penalty. Even a minor police action to secure your borders from an overly-aggressive AI (they really like plopping cities next to your capital now) sees half the AI players lose their #h!t and denounce you forever and ever. I don't mind that there is a penalty, but it should dissipate eventually - something your people did 3000 years ago really shouldn't be relevant to 20th century global politics.

I mean the warmonger penalty makes sense for a little while. But I declared a total of one war in my last game, and it was at the request of Carthage - Dido wanted an alliance against England. As England had founded Nottingham about five tiles from my capital, I agreed. I took Nottingham and Carthage took London and York, eliminating England from play, around the .

Every war I was in thereafter was a defensive war, I never declared once. And this was, like, 500 AD. And yet for the rest of the game, Carthage considered me a warmonger! WHAT!?

It's no longer a defensive war if you take cities.

Cymsdale said:

It's no longer a defensive war if you take cities.

Click to expand...

That's something that really needs to change - because usually the only way to force the AI to make peace is to take a couple of their cities. It's a lose-lose. The alternative is to have a hostile AI with whom you're at war on your borders for the entirety of the game.

Bad Wolf said:

That's something that really needs to change - because usually the only way to force the AI to make peace is to take a couple of their cities. It's a lose-lose. The alternative is to have a hostile AI with whom you're at war on your borders for the entirety of the game.

Click to expand...

Is that really so bad? There is no war exhaustion, so prolonged war doesn't hurt. You can raid his land for gold and workers. Many AI's will definitely give in if you destroy their whole army.

I'm not saying this is the best way to go in every situation, but taking cities isn't the only option to defend yourself.

If you make peace with Assyria, Zulu, Haiawatha, Montezuma, Mongol, Hun, or Japan they will just build up another army and attack you again.

If you never agree to peace between them, you can romp around their territory and keep their army small for the rest of the game while you rack up ridiculous XP. This is especially fun if you playing a warmonger yourself, then you can just keep trashing their new cities for Tech/Culture/Gold/Whatever.

You can definitely force the AI to peace without taking a single city. In my last game William was a part of an alliance that DoW'd me and did some serious damage to my trade routes. I used my subs to crush his navy and then just lurked around his coast, killing the occasional embarked worker or military unit, a few sea beggars and plundering fishing boats and cargo ships. Eventually he agreed to a peace settlement - he offered a large city (21 population!) but I instead offered to take most of his per-turn income. I reached similar settlements with William's allies and got a massive amount of gold to replenish my lost trade routes with.

While I am still on my first game I never declared war myself I have joined wars at the behest of best friends Shaka and theodora against Brazil I myself personally joined cause this turned into a holy war. Before the war actually begun. They also declared war on me twice before these joint wars were asked holy wars again they even brought missionaries. I beat them troops. After both wars they were still loved by everyone no denounced except me, but if I declared war on them everyone would hate me or be neutral. But fate caught up to Brazil and everyone hated them after doing something to someone I missed who and what they did to someone.

Bad Wolf said:

That's something that really needs to change - because usually the only way to force the AI to make peace is to take a couple of their cities. It's a lose-lose. The alternative is to have a hostile AI with whom you're at war on your borders for the entirety of the game.

Click to expand...

This is no longer true in BNW. AI will make peace and give you stuff now if you destroy most of their army and begin attacking a city with enough firepower nearby to be threatening. No need to take a city. AI may even offer you a city in the peace deal (although, I'm not sure if that counts for warmonger penalty or not).

BNW's diplomacy modifiers heavily tilt against any type of military aggression.

adwcta said:

AI may even offer you a city in the peace deal

Click to expand...

It's pretty sweet too, because you don't get the population loss and building destruction.

It does give warmonger penalty though, but who cares, those other civs can whine while I enjoy my pristine new full-pop city.

VainoValkea said:

You can definitely force the AI to peace without taking a single city. In my last game William was a part of an alliance that DoW'd me and did some serious damage to my trade routes. I used my subs to crush his navy and then just lurked around his coast, killing the occasional embarked worker or military unit, a few sea beggars and plundering fishing boats and cargo ships. Eventually he agreed to a peace settlement - he offered a large city (21 population!) but I instead offered to take most of his per-turn income. I reached similar settlements with William's allies and got a massive amount of gold to replenish my lost trade routes with.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've done too with my last game. The AI ended up changing ideology after ward and we became best pal until I culture bombed him last with tourism.

Cymsdale said:

It's no longer a defensive war if you take cities.

Click to expand...

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

I dunno, I maintain that if you invade me and in the ensuing war I conquer some of your territory, that sucks for you but it doesn't make me a warmonger - you attacked me!

At least give me some wiggle room. If the city I conquer is closer to my capitol than yours (maybe to a maximum distance of 8 hexes or something) and you're the one that declared war, I shouldn't get warmonger for taking it.

Or maybe the AI should become more sensitive to warmongers as the game goes on? The ancient and classical eras weren't known for leaders who rejected warfare - heck right up to the modern era conquest was considered a legitimate form of extending your interests.

Cymsdale said:

It's no longer a defensive war if you take cities.

Click to expand...

So basically what you are saying is, applying firaxis logic to the real world, the USA, Soviet Union, UK, France and even poland would be considered warmongers from 1945 on. Afterall, they were all occupying part of berlin and poland got a bunch of territory after WW2.

Uh oh, hope this doesn't get political...

I did burn a few Hunnic cities to ward off future invasion from them. I wonder if the fact that I razed them matters, or the fact that he started it, or the fact that he was the biggest warmonger on the planet anyway.

I like the AI settings the way they are now. If you were playing against human opponents, and you saw one person take another person's city, you'd realize that that person will use military force to get what they want, even if they don't think you're going for a military victory.
If I saw that happen, I'd likely not be as rude as the civs are, but I would definitely realize that this person now had an advantage of military might and the benefits of a conquested city, and even if they were far away, I'd drive harder bargains in trades.

I actually do like most of the changes they've made to the AI. I like how they're not obsessed with settling EVERY SINGLE TILE ON THE MAP anymore - even right up to the end of the only BNW game I finished there were still unclaimed tiles on the map. That NEVER happened in my Vanilla or G&K games. Literally, never. It was so interesting to see the AI focus on settling a few strategic cities rather than defaulting to ICC. Even Alexander was relatively modest in this regard, only settling about ten or so cities (a tiny satrap compared to the former Alex's sprawling, continent-wide empires). I like how the AI is smarter now and won't declare on you, kamikaze their units into your defensive wall, and then roll over and let you take their capital.

However, I do agree with the general consensus that the early AI is now a bit too soft, and WAY too sensitive to warmongers. There is virtually no war in the ancient and classical eras now. These were eras of constant warfare and conquest! Frankly I don't think the warmonger penalty should kick in until the Renaissance (ie: when people started giving a crap about human life for its own sake).

One thing though - they definitely do still let you have the diplo victory too easily. If anything the diplo victory is even easier now since you don't need to build the UN.