Josh123914
Chieftain
Tbh, I agree largely with Other Josh, y'see while I CAN plan ahead of conquests, befriending other civs and sometimes paying them to DoW first, it is a logistical nightmare up and until at least Guilds is researched, and it seems sort of needless in an attempt to appease more peaceful players (which I can be on occasion)
The problem comes when an AI settles within your sphere of influence (hypothetical area you claim as yours, that should probably be introduced) and when you take out the Pop 1 city half the planet denounces you.
This not only labels you a warmonger for ~200 turns (which will in reality be forever because the second you don't have it the same AIs will hate you anyway for ignoring them half the game) but completely obliterates the point of most of the game's UU tactics.
Whats the point of even playing the Huns or Assyria anymore if in the time taken to befriend most of the map you have teched passed your siege weaponry.
In fact why is Siege weaponry a thing if the so called new way of warfare is to stand in a field and obliterate the opposing force's army. I use CBs for that type of fighting, not catapults!
I also wholeheartedly agree with whoever said warmonger penalties scaling with eras.
Ancient, Classical and MAYBE Medieval eras should have non-existant penalties. In a TSL Europe map all 21 civs should NOT denounce me for wiping out the Celts in the year 1000BC.
Hell, England conquered Ireland and attempted to exterminate the populous in the 1600's and no outside force seemed to give a sh!t. Aside from Spain, but they were using Ireland more as a forward base to attack England from rather than to actually assist the Irish.
Now, while this definitely would make more peaceful civs more vulnerable, I hate to put it like this but that's life. If you have 2 cities and only 3 units total to defend them while surrounded by Shaka, Attila and the Khan, you should perhaps reconsider whats important: getting that Great scientist in 8 turns and bulbing an Academy, or building a few CBs to garrison in your cities as defence. Because thats what happened IRL, the most dangerous time for peaceful civs is at the very start, and the game is built around early warmongers getting their lead at that point. You see it clearly in most games today. Unless the likes of Atilla doesn't conquer another civ before renaissance, he becomes out-teched by even the barbarian camps.
It should scale up the later you go, e,g in Europe, if say, France DoW'd Spain in the Renaissance or Industrial eras, half the map took a side because of how important it was to keep their allies. And I mean proper armies, not the BS the current AI pulls, were we mutually agree to DoW someone, and all they bring to the fray is a scout or two to pillage the land.
Going into the Modern Era warfare can be looked down on the way it is currently in the game, which would befit the game since aside from Germany (go figure) most UUs at that point are geared more towards defending the homeland than anything else.
And going into the Future Era it should be nigh-impossible to do without justification. I mean look at the Syria conflict today. The US was getting hatred from tonnes of places for PLANNING to attack Syria (which in Civ terms would be them placing units at Syria's borders) without UN consent.
So as a pipe dream, I'd love the above to happen in a patch, but more likely I'll have to wait until Civ 6
The problem comes when an AI settles within your sphere of influence (hypothetical area you claim as yours, that should probably be introduced) and when you take out the Pop 1 city half the planet denounces you.
This not only labels you a warmonger for ~200 turns (which will in reality be forever because the second you don't have it the same AIs will hate you anyway for ignoring them half the game) but completely obliterates the point of most of the game's UU tactics.
Whats the point of even playing the Huns or Assyria anymore if in the time taken to befriend most of the map you have teched passed your siege weaponry.
In fact why is Siege weaponry a thing if the so called new way of warfare is to stand in a field and obliterate the opposing force's army. I use CBs for that type of fighting, not catapults!
I also wholeheartedly agree with whoever said warmonger penalties scaling with eras.
Ancient, Classical and MAYBE Medieval eras should have non-existant penalties. In a TSL Europe map all 21 civs should NOT denounce me for wiping out the Celts in the year 1000BC.
Hell, England conquered Ireland and attempted to exterminate the populous in the 1600's and no outside force seemed to give a sh!t. Aside from Spain, but they were using Ireland more as a forward base to attack England from rather than to actually assist the Irish.
Now, while this definitely would make more peaceful civs more vulnerable, I hate to put it like this but that's life. If you have 2 cities and only 3 units total to defend them while surrounded by Shaka, Attila and the Khan, you should perhaps reconsider whats important: getting that Great scientist in 8 turns and bulbing an Academy, or building a few CBs to garrison in your cities as defence. Because thats what happened IRL, the most dangerous time for peaceful civs is at the very start, and the game is built around early warmongers getting their lead at that point. You see it clearly in most games today. Unless the likes of Atilla doesn't conquer another civ before renaissance, he becomes out-teched by even the barbarian camps.
It should scale up the later you go, e,g in Europe, if say, France DoW'd Spain in the Renaissance or Industrial eras, half the map took a side because of how important it was to keep their allies. And I mean proper armies, not the BS the current AI pulls, were we mutually agree to DoW someone, and all they bring to the fray is a scout or two to pillage the land.
Going into the Modern Era warfare can be looked down on the way it is currently in the game, which would befit the game since aside from Germany (go figure) most UUs at that point are geared more towards defending the homeland than anything else.
And going into the Future Era it should be nigh-impossible to do without justification. I mean look at the Syria conflict today. The US was getting hatred from tonnes of places for PLANNING to attack Syria (which in Civ terms would be them placing units at Syria's borders) without UN consent.
So as a pipe dream, I'd love the above to happen in a patch, but more likely I'll have to wait until Civ 6