The denouncation -mechanic is ******ed

[Nightshades]

This is probably the most ******ed denouncation so far:
I've been playing a pacifist/cultural game as Russia, on king difficulty, for almost three eras.
I've not done any DoW's, but everytime I've been DoW'd I've fought back ofc. I've been a diplomatic and friendly civ in this game, who've had the status "friendly" with every civ except psycho-Monty.

During this game, Alexander went on to manipulate the entire world (as usual) and get ALL citystates on his side, and to found his personal bank of 22k gold. Monty attacks the entire world from day one - nothing weird about that.

Now, being a smaller, cultural civ (but with a modern army) it was just a matter of time before anyone would try and steal my lands. So when Alexander DoW me out of the blue - after having a very friendly relationship with lots of trades and RA's - all his CS' DoW's me too ofc. A lame backstabbing move since he had troops inside my borders when he did that. Either way, I fought back and crushed him, and also conquered two CS' that were basicly part of my territory from the start. I know that conquest gets you closer to the warmonger status but WTF are you supposed to do in a situation like this? Park my troops outside their lame cities and get annihilated by their city bombardment by being a pacifist? I took them - they DoW'd me after all. I protected myself by making a stop to their aggressive behavior the only way possible.

This didn't really change the global politics against me. But this together with the next thing did, and it got me into a rage (deleting the save games) because it was so damn stupid.

Monty, the impulsive psychopath had sneaked a settler behind my lines and founded a city. Now, since he is a warmonger, the entire world hates him and has denounced him. Several times I've been asked by other civs to help them in their war against him. And I declined all of them except one: the babylonians.

The babylonians are my closest neighbor, and we've traded for ages and fought the same maniac foes for ages. We would be allies if that trade agreement was available by this time. He asks me to DoW monty, I say I'll do it in 10 turns.
During the same turn, beach boy (polynesians) ask me the same favor: "can you kick montys ass pretty plx?"

So after 10 turns when they ask me again, I DoW monty, thinking I'm doing the world a favor. But no...

The next 2 turns, the ENTIRE WORLD denounces me - even my ALLY the babylonians (who came up with the stupid plan to attack monty in the first place) AND beach boy.
Where the hell is the logic in that? This is by far the most flawed game design currently in the game. The warmonger status/denouncation hell is so flawed it's saddening.
First the babylonians and beach boy "begs" me to DoW psycho-monty, and the next turn they denounce me!!! And everyone who've been under threat by monty does that as well. Why are they so counter-productive towards themselves?

I know that only DoW's and conquering entire nations gives you this type of bad reputation - but there should be at least SOME KIND of logic behind it. I HAD to attack the greek CS' because idiot-Alex REFUSED to sign a peace treaty and the CS' were shelling my soldiers. And as for Monty - I thought the world HATED him???

What's the point of trying to be diplomatic when you can't befriend or ally anyone without getting denounced by the entire world (and even by that friend/ally)??? It seems to me that the UN/diplomacy victory condition is only for the manipulative greeks or very wealthy players - who are wealthy enough to overbid Alex. "STUPID" is not enough to explain this game design flaw.

I want to end this rage by asking if there is any mod around that fixes this? Because as it is right now, it's really ruining my gameplay experience.

 

[chazzycat]

denunciations can seem odd but there is usually an explanation somehow.

In my current Game, Gandhi nuked me. The next turn 4 civs including long time friends denounced me. Generally, the victim of a nuclear attack is not looked down on in international diplomacy, rather the opposite! But the real reason was that I had backstabbed Gandhi to start this war. And the nuke took out my air force, dramatically lowering my strength level so that the other civs were not as scared of me anymore.

Killing the 2 CS was almost certainly what did it for you, or at least set the stage. There is always a rep hit from DOWing...even for the civs that asked you to join. I'm guessing killing the 2 CS put you on the threshold, where one more bad action would be the end for you. DOWing Monty, regardless of who asked you to, was that final straw.

Babs could also have a relatively low tolerance for warmonger hate, I don't remember all the civ diplo values.

 

[Nightshades]

Yea I know that - I understand the mechanics.
All I'm saying is that they are stupid and illogical. You should get praised, not hated, by the world for dealing with a warmonger (monty) or manipulative bastards who backstabs all his friends (greeks).

And if you are not "allowed" to conquer CS's when they DoW you - how are you supposed to defend against them when they have their borders inside, or next to, your empire? It just doesn't make any sense. Defense shouldn't get you warmonger "score".

 

[chazzycat]

Yea I know that - I understand the mechanics.
All I'm saying is that they are stupid and illogical. You should get praised, not hated, by the world for dealing with a warmonger (monty) or manipulative bastards who backstabs all his friends (greeks).

And if you are not "allowed" to conquer CS's when they DoW you - how are you supposed to defend against them when they have their borders inside, or next to, your empire? It just doesn't make any sense. Defense shouldn't get you warmonger "score".

It's very rare that the CS city will be only 2 tiles away from your territory, so you should be safe from the city attacks if you stay inside your borders. Just kill all their units and contain them with a garrison, but don't push in. I don't think this is really a problem most of the time.

Diplo logic does still need a bit of work, I agree. But I don't generally find it to be game breaking.

 

[vexing]

conquering a city state isn't necessary to kill their troops.
declaring war after the two city state annihilations put you beyond their hatred limits.

 

[Kbo]

Like Vexing said, basically regardless of the reasoning behind it the world sees you as a warmongerer because you conquered two CS, and then DoW on another player. Same reason I avoid conquering a civ entirely, ends up having bad diplo.

Not to mention...did you by any chance end up grabbing a big lead because of all the cities and land you snagged through those two CS and the Greek war? Generally civs will put some hate on you if you're well ahead or have too many cities, you get a negative *we think you're expanding your cities too aggressively* point in diplo.

 

[Buccaneer]

Even if it appears that some denounciations (and DoW) are random, that has to be acceptable in order to keep you on your toes. You can't have a game where your opponents leave you alone to play (and win) however you like.

 

[joncnunn]

I'd first eliminate the "desperation DOWs" where AI knows it can't win but DOWs a much stronger opponent anyway.

Especially when that AI is already at war with someone else.

 

[SemperFi2382]

Even if it appears that some denounciations (and DoW) are random, that has to be acceptable in order to keep you on your toes. You can't have a game where your opponents leave you alone to play (and win) however you like.

How does it have to be acceptable?

A diplomatic civ, that is friendly with everyone and gets a DoW from a warmonger, or a back stabber should have every right to retaliate. That is basically like saying if Switzerland gets invaded, they cannot fight back even if they are being shot at with strategic missiles from inside another city because taking that city would be warmongering.

Yes, I understand that the game should recognize what victory you are going for and throw a few curves, but to call you a warmonger for defending yourself or being helpful to the world is not an acceptable mechanic. That would be like when Iraq invaded Kuwait, calling the one specific nation out of the allied forces warmongers for doing what the whole world asked for in the first place.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The denouncation is not based on warmonger status specifically, or even on the relation indicator. It's diplomatic move to tell other civs about relations with you. I'm paying my current game without anything provoking warmonger status at all (Emperor, Ghandi) and I still sometimes get denounced with civs who attacked me and got slapped. Still their reasons are completely clear.

Also, regarding the warmonger status - the mechanics are known, so if you conquer city states and declare war, you should be ready to accept it. No matter if you consider yourself good guy or call your actions "forced".

 

[Gehennas]

I think you shouldn't forget to denounce your enemy first, especially if he is hated by the other civs: this will give you a relationship boost with them.

 

[FlowKey]

A general observation based on your story: the AI civs act more like the calculating, manipulative, back stabbing humans we are than in earlier civ versions. I feel that's a positive development.

On a side note: in your story you are suggesting a sort of civIII type RoP rape move by Greece (DoW while in your territory) which as far as I know is impossible since units are ejected at the moment of DoW, because open borders treaty is automatically cancelled.

Come to think of it, maybe you shouldn't have given Greece open borders to begin with ...

 

[jagwade]

The diplomatic aspect of Civ V needs to get better and I believe it will with time. Right now it's based off who has the most money which if you think about, is actually correct but there are many other reasons why a Civ will grow to hate you such as building wonders or building a large army. Check this out for a better understanding of why (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=409062).

Also, I completely agree with Flowkey - Never let Alexander inside your borders!

 

[Bleser]

I think you shouldn't forget to denounce your enemy first, especially if he is hated by the other civs: this will give you a relationship boost with them.

This is a good suggestion. If all the other Civs hated Monty so much, then denouncing him would give you an extra boost in relations with them, possibly enough to not get denounced yourself.

Another observation might be the duel wait-ten-turns you were subject to. I have a feeling that there might be bug that only honored your agreement with one of the Civs and not the other (you were already at war by the time it checked the status of the second agreement, hence you didn't wait ten turns?). I don't know, it's a stretch, but might have played out negatively. I've always had the Civs that ask for war love me after agreeing (ten turns or not), especially now that you get a bonus for fighting a "common foe."

 

[BooNL]

This is a good suggestion. If all the other Civs hated Monty so much, then denouncing him would give you an extra boost in relations with them, possibly enough to not get denounced yourself.

Another observation might be the duel wait-ten-turns you were subject to. I have a feeling that there might be bug that only honored your agreement with one of the Civs and not the other (you were already at war by the time it checked the status of the second agreement, hence you didn't wait ten turns?). I don't know, it's a stretch, but might have played out negatively. I've always had the Civs that ask for war love me after agreeing (ten turns or not), especially now that you get a bonus for fighting a "common foe."

This is actually something I've run into a couple of times now. If you ask to wait 10 turns, but attack sooner you basically break the deal and the attack is viewed as a regular DoW.

You accepted two '10 turns' against the same Civ, probably at different turns. So there's no way to honour your agreement. I hate this mechanic as you get a diplohit with the second Civ wether you DoW against their enemy or not.

 

[headcase]

You accepted two '10 turns' against the same Civ, probably at different turns. So there's no way to honour your agreement. I hate this mechanic as you get a diplohit with the second Civ wether you DoW against their enemy or not.

Really, all of that could be fixed if you could drag in further civs into trades and agreements.

Say A asks you to take B to war. You should be able to call in C (and\or D, E, F) and propose to all, then they can accept\reject on a per-civ basis. If anyone does reject, then the deal isn't final and any other civ can make a counter-proposal.

Each civ would have their own column; if they were trading something else such as, say, gold, it would say which civ it's going to as well. So you could offer everyone x gold (or whatever) to go to war simultaneously (if you have enough to cover everyone) instead of sloppy single trades.

Now obviously the AI couldn't handle every complicated situation, but it really is necessary to have n-way deals in some capacity, at least for war if not for gold, RAs, lux, etc. (I especially like the idea of n-way RAs because they could be cheaper and allow diplomatic civs to unite). Even really weird stuff (I give A gold, B gives C lux, C gives me strat) would be cool, though again tough to code. Really, just war and gold would be wonderful for a future add-on.

The current system is that you denounce the civ and just hope the others go to war, or agree to war and then see who else you can get afterwards. That's fine but not as concrete or satisfying as an n-way deal.

 

[Dean.]

That would be like when Iraq invaded Kuwait, calling the one specific nation out of the allied forces warmongers for doing what the whole world asked for in the first place.

...and that would be accurate. Iraq was goaded into war by the US who, when Kuwait's high oil production was causing an acute financial crisis in Iraq (by lowering the cost of oil), told Saddam that they would not pick sides in the conflict.

The story is more complicated than that, but its too much to go into here. The point is that the underlying causes are far more intricate, and nations today are often highly inconsistent.

Another thing that made me think differently about the diplomacy is the real world history of diplomacy. Allies can become enemies in a matter of years - often decades pass in a singe turn in Civ5. I think that having 1 leader represent a nation misleads us into thinking that diplomacy should be expressed in fairly consistent leaders and actions. But in the real world, nations can be far more fickle.

 

[SemperFi2382]

...and that would be accurate. Iraq was goaded into war by the US who, when Kuwait's high oil production was causing an acute financial crisis in Iraq (by lowering the cost of oil), told Saddam that they would not pick sides in the conflict.

The story is more complicated than that, but its too much to go into here. The point is that the underlying causes are far more intricate, and nations today are often highly inconsistent.

Another thing that made me think differently about the diplomacy is the real world history of diplomacy. Allies can become enemies in a matter of years - often decades pass in a singe turn in Civ5. I think that having 1 leader represent a nation misleads us into thinking that diplomacy should be expressed in fairly consistent leaders and actions. But in the real world, nations can be far more fickle.

You know, in that context, the mechanic actually makes a lot of sense. Not to mention one can forget the quick advancement of years (even in marathon mode).

I still think the mechanic is far too messy, even though its real life counterpart is equally so. One of my main problems is that let's say I was in fact, a war monger in my early years. Two ages later, not having been in so much as a border scuffle, I am still being denounced as a war monger, even if I have played nice for quite some time.

While in my example, it holds true that animosity will persist, it certainly does not in politics. I mean, you do not hear at the UN about what so and so did back in the 1800's or else people would still hate a nation for being war mongers. We certainly do not still hold a grudge for Napoleon, Alexander, etc.

Honestly if that were the case, every Allied Nation from WWII would still be war mongers for taking a German city over.

I'd be happy if say if at peace for 60+ turns, you lose the war monger status. Better yet, how long it took to go away was dependent on how many cities you took and doubled if you declared war? I would take that as an acceptable solution. Then at least I could defend myself, and then deal with some unpleasant politics for a bit. For a peaceful civ, it would help out. For a war monger, well, if you are gonna crush, kill and destroy, why would you care if they liked you?

 

[gaiko]

Not to necessarily defend the diplo mechanics, but I've noticed that with the latest patches, you really have to tend to the DoFs and aim denunciations accordingly, to shield you somewhat from warmonger hate - especially if you are a warmonger - but even if you are warring defensively (and gaining in the result). Over the long run course of the game even this will wear thin eventually - you'll be hard pressed to keep on friendly terms with even one AI.

That said, the interaction between the CS and diplo mechanics *is* quite annoying, especially the huge sums of gold the AI amasses at higher difficulties. Combine that with the nukefest late game, and you get the picture. It gets to be Whack-A-Mole.

 

[Dean.]

Not to necessarily defend the diplo mechanics, but I've noticed that with the latest patches, you really have to tend to the DoFs

Speaking of this, does this require resource gifts? Civs often ask for resources immediately after DoFing me, and I consistently turn them down. I assume that I couldn't expect resources by doing the same thing, so I see no need to capitulate.

But am I wrong? Can Players get resources by DoFing friendly civilizations?