1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

A moderate warmonger penalty is -16!!??

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Dustbrother, Oct 22, 2016.

  1. Tiger Genocide

    Tiger Genocide Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    344
    Gender:
    Male
    I wish that was the case. I have a Gorgo(Greece game), and I wiped out my first continent of Germany and Harold well before the Industrial Era (like Medieval Era) . Then after I made contact with the other civs, sometime in the Industrial Era before I could declare war on the remaining 5 civs, Ghandi denounces me as a warmonger. I was surprised. Is it possible he made contact with Harold before I wiped him out? I have no idea. Only he did it, which makes me think that is possible. Maybe he could tell because of the victory conditions or that I had 3 original capitals? I have no idea.
     
  2. elitetroops

    elitetroops Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    5,681
    I think he had met Harald. Harald can cross the oceans very early to meet everybody.
     
    Tiger Genocide likes this.
  3. Ansive

    Ansive Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    351
    From what I've seen the diplo penalty from declaring war or taking over cities seems to decay by 1 point every two turns (on epic speed).
    Also, I think the plus and minus diplo modifiers are flat (like civ 4 and 5) and not a per turn sum adding or decreasing some hidden diplo modifier balance.
    I say that since after taking over two cities, getting hit with a -33 diplo modifier and being denounced by everyone, it only took liberating 1 city state (warmonger penalties removed, +5 liberating modifier added) to get all civs back to neutral stance (after their denounce timer expired).
     
  4. Jabulani

    Jabulani Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2016
    Messages:
    274
    Why bothering with warmonger huge penalties, disable warmonger penalties and the game will be less ridiculous, imo.
     
  5. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,088
    Location:
    Iowa USA
    Oh yeah man! This is what Civilization has turned into. I never should have bought it. What a waste of money!
     
    Jabulani and Zuizgond like this.
  6. narmox

    narmox Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2001
    Messages:
    1,345
    Location:
    Canada
    Haven't read the full thread, haven't read all the threads in this forum either, so I may not be the first to think of this but here's an idea that just popped in my head:

    What if Warmonger penalties scaled the same way as nearly everything else seems to scale in this game? ie settlers, builders and traders cost go up the more you build or buy them. What if warmonger penalties went up as you declared more wars/took more cities, rather than scale in steps at every "age"?

    Haven't thought through all the implications of it of course, but then it would represent more the "warmonger" part of "warmonger penalty", wouldn't it? Someone who goes to war a lot, conquers a lot, would incur a lot more penalties than someone who is generally peaceful then is forced to go to war at some point for survival/retaliation or finally expanding in later ages.
     
  7. bladex

    bladex Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    if you want to edit the wm penalties you can do so by editing the ERAS.xml located in Base\Assets\Gameplay\Data

    look for the line: WarmongerPoints=" and set it to whatever you want. set it to 0 and there will never be any penalties.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2016
    Jabulani likes this.
  8. CaiusDrewart

    CaiusDrewart King

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Yes. Scrap the warmonger penalty altogther.

    The game really does not need it. If you invade an AI, that should result in a diplomatic penalty with three kinds of AI: 1) the AI you invaded (duh), 2) AIs who liked the AI you invaded ("You declared war on our friend!") and 3) AIs who have a pacifist agenda (like Gandhi or Teddy). It should NOT result in a global penalty with everyone. That makes diplomacy nonfunctional if you plan to do any significant warring.
     
  9. Nathaniel VII

    Nathaniel VII Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    It's not just the severity of the penalty, but also its longevity. I mean, Germany basically started two world wars in the span of 50 years, and 50 years later they are a well-respected country almost across the western world.

    Compare that to the current state of Civ, where if I eliminate someone in the middle ages, everyone else hates me until the end of the game. Yes, it's genocide, but genocide has been a very real thing in the real world and it doesn't cause this millenia-spanning disgust from the entire rest of the world, because guess what, mostly everyone who commited these genocides is now dead.

    Right now the game is just utterly frustrating. The AI constantly denounces you because of their silly agendas (how dare I recruit a great person), but if you finally wipe them off the map, even if it's just to keep them from invading you for the 4th time, you are branded an outcast for the rest of the game. The "correct" strategy seems to be to just pillage every improvement and district on their land and then give back their cities, and then everyone will be mostly fine with you. Because that's not an atrocity at all, is it?

    The game is just utterly schizophrenic. On one hand the AI is built to hate you because of agendas, while on the other hand you're pressed to play peacefully because of warmonger penalties. You can have either one, or the other, but certainly not both.
     
  10. bladex

    bladex Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    see post #107
     
  11. Nathaniel VII

    Nathaniel VII Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    We are discussing the state of the unmodded game. I'm well aware that it can be modded.
     
  12. bladex

    bladex Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    than put up with it than
     
  13. diamond geezer

    diamond geezer Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    188
    Location:
    UK
    It is illogical, but why is everybody so worried? I have a warmonger penalty of -470 at the moment on Deity, but that's fair as I've wiped out the French, the Greeks, the Vikings, the Chinese, Jakarta and am currently at war with the last remaining Civ, Egypt. The penalty hasn't stopped me leading in every category and I don't have a single city rebelling.
     
  14. Jabulani

    Jabulani Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2016
    Messages:
    274
    Thx a lot, you are the man, cheers

    If you attack 2 units and stop and if you raze 8 cities you would agree that its illogical to apply the same warmonger huge penalty
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2016
  15. steveg700

    steveg700 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,547
    A player's neighboring civ's should definitely have an opinion about aggressive actions towards other neighbors.

    Warmongering penalties aren't simply about good versus bad, nice versus mean. It serves a more basic reaction of shunning those who might prove aggressive towards them. It's lacking for many reasons, but the bottom line for me is that AI's don't actually seem to execute any behavior that might represent a plan of action. Either try to steer an aggressive civ into a path of non-aggression, or form power blocks against them. But the whole system is rather hollow, offering neither the mechanisms nor the incentives to deepen inter-empire relationships.

    So, all you get is a number, positive or negative, which provides only a shallow narrative and few interesting political decisions.
     
  16. Cerryl

    Cerryl Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2001
    Messages:
    216
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri

    Take or raze a city. -16 ain't nothing :)
     
  17. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,713
    There's no real tradeoff. The difference between what you've done and taking 3 cities is trivial when it comes to diplomatic relationships.

    So why even care about it? Just take all the cities and have done. However, that implies the mechanic is irrelevant/not adding anything meaningful to the game. It could in principle, but it does not.
     
  18. Tamir Lenk

    Tamir Lenk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    78
    The penalty for razing a city should scale according to population and/or districts. 3x penalty for torching an idiotically placed one pop city should not hurt your diplomatic status the same as butchering a metropolis.
     
  19. AppleDumplingHead

    AppleDumplingHead Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,171
    I think -16 is pretty light. It's easy to get positive 30s and 40s cumulatively doing next to nothing, but that also depends who the opponents are. Some games, because of the opponent agendas and personalities, you might be buddies with everyone and feel bad for taking their stuff, or you might struggle to become friends with two.
     
  20. Abraxis

    Abraxis Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,312
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    A temporary -16 modifier shouldn't hurt your relations too bad, unless they were strained to begin with. It sounds to me like you're not very good at being diplomatic.

    That being said, taking over another civ puts you at such a MASSIVE advantage that if it weren't for these penalties for taking people's capitals, there would be no point in pursuing any other kind of victory. As it stands it's already mandatory that you conquer your neighbours to even have a shot at any sort of victory. This isn't meant to exclusively be a war game.
     

Share This Page