AI believes you're a warmonger...

[Suicidekills]

So I was playing a game as Poland on standard settings pangea immortal and the other civs I was playing against were France, Arabia, the Huns, Zulu, Aztec, China, and Songhai. I know a lot of people have been saying the AI is more passive in BNW but I think it all depends on the settings. For example in this game Attila has already killed arabia, zulu is denouncing people left and right, Askia and the Aztecs went to war, and I attacked France and I'm only at like turn 120. So in a way I think the BNW games are more interesting because you don't know whether you're going to have a peacful game, an aggressive game, or something in between but anyway...

The point of this thread was I found something interesting in the diplomatic modifiers that baffled me. Since I attacked France pretty much everyone believed I was a warmonger, but most the civs tolerated warmongers including songhai, china, the huns, france, and aztecs which is actually the first time iv'e seen that usually the civ doesnt like warmongers but based on those civs that makes sense. So I'm assuming whether a civ tolerates a warmonger or not is dependent on the civ. Makes sense right?? Needless to say I was very confused when I scrolled over to Zulu where i found that they don't like warmongers. Huh?!? Anyone care to explain this to me?

 

[Randall_Flagg]

Cannot explain the warmonger status in this game. My last game, Sweden kept trying to settle up next to me. I had planned ahead and kept 2 archers watching for this. Told them do not settle near me!! They said no problem great leader. A few turns later here comes settler. So I took it, took his Capitol, renamed it Gotcha. Burned his other 2 cities off the map.

Russia and Hawaii Hate me!! lol. Finally get out and find everyone else, it took until 1782 before I could find a friend!! It was around 1500 bc when Sweden went bye bye. Needless to say, my continent is a constant denounce of me. Despite years of peaceful trade between Russia and Hawaii and myself.

 

[Barak]

Playing as Arabia, i noticed that my 2 little early wars were still causing me to be labeled a war monger 3000 years later! No one is my friend, no one will trade to even value and no one will give me open boarders.

Naturally everyone is spying on me and gets mad when I ask them not to. It makes it really hard to spread my musicians or find artifacts when I can't peacefully enter their territory.

 

[Suicidekills]

Playing as Arabia, i noticed that my 2 little early wars were still causing me to be labeled a war monger 3000 years later! No one is my friend, no one will trade to even value and no one will give me open boarders.

Naturally everyone is spying on me and gets mad when I ask them not to. It makes it really hard to spread my musicians or find artifacts when I can't peacefully enter their territory.

Yea, in BNW I find it's very important to make sure the AI is happy with the addition of trade routes plus the fact that you need a DOF to be able to sell your luxuries for straight up gold. Once the whole world hates you, good luck.

 

[mrwho]

They really need to change the warmonger penalty so that the AI can never be mad at a civ for being a warmonger if they do more warmongering than said civ. It's just stupid when Shaka hates you for being a warmonger whilst he DOWs left right and centre.

 

[sonicandfffan]

Warmonger diplo penalties need some serious rebalancing right now they're too easy to obtain and too hard to get rid of.

 

[pilot00]

Ever faced a CiV that believed that you are a warmongering menace to the world with the added trait 'they hate warmongers' and a couple of turns later adopting autocracy?

 

[Suicidekills]

They really need to change the warmonger penalty so that the AI can never be mad at a civ for being a warmonger if they do more warmongering than said civ. It's just stupid when Shaka hates you for being a warmonger whilst he DOWs left right and centre.

That sounds like a good idea. Or at least make it so you can't get the penalty until you at go to war at least twice. You go to war once and you're a warmonger?? Not cool...

 

[Suicidekills]

The best part about that game is Zulu not too long ago asked me to go to war with Attila, which is fine since I needed someone else to fight anyway, so I'm thinking he's gonna use me to kill off Attila and then backstab me once he's done using me. Hmmm very sneaky Ai...

 

[Dragonmaster83]

Cannot explain the warmonger status in this game. My last game, Sweden kept trying to settle up next to me. I had planned ahead and kept 2 archers watching for this. Told them do not settle near me!! They said no problem great leader. A few turns later here comes settler. So I took it, took his Capitol, renamed it Gotcha. Burned his other 2 cities off the map.

Russia and Hawaii Hate me!! lol. Finally get out and find everyone else, it took until 1782 before I could find a friend!! It was around 1500 bc when Sweden went bye bye. Needless to say, my continent is a constant denounce of me. Despite years of peaceful trade between Russia and Hawaii and myself.

Well if you wipe someone completely out, the AI's really dont like that. Generally I just leave them with some weak city thats pillaged with no army left. Avoid a good bit of penalty that way. Someone else can come wipe them off the map afterwards.

 

[DuseCutter]

I agree there needs to be some tweaking. I'm playing a Prince, Pangea+, Standard game as Assyria against America, Russia, Indonesia, Carthage, Spain, Sweden, and Babylon. Washington was my neighbor and his capital was 10 tiles away, so of course, I thought that'll be my first expansion. Well then he settles another city right in between us. So I wipe him off the map, while breaking a promise about troops on the border. (I don't normally warmonger so I was making rookie mistakes....)

Anyway, a few turns later, Russia, Indonesia, and Sweden declare on me so I take one of Indonesia's cities as punishment. This was all in the BC and I haven't DOWed since. Of course, now it's the 1950s and everyone still says I'm a warmonger and untrustworthy. I've done my best to repair my reputation and many of them have bright green modifiers as well. The best I can do is Neutral and Guarded.

The best part is they embargoed me and the city states so I have no trade partners, but they all buy my surplus luxuries for gpt. Fortunately I saw it coming and converted some farms to TPs, so I'm still making ok money.

It's made the game much harder, but I'm barely behind in Tech and I think a SV is possible. But I also want to punish the entire world (since they don't believe I've turned over a new leaf) and just get the DV already. I never do DV and that was the whole point of this game, but I'm such a builder that I don't want to ruin all the work I did to get decent relations. Oh well...

 

[Deggial]

Needless to say I was very confused when I scrolled over to Zulu where i found that they don't like warmongers. Huh?!? Anyone care to explain this to me?

Double standards are not limited to Civ5, you know? Just take a look at the real world...
No, seriously! It might be annoying, but it is not so unbelievable that a leader wants to conquer the world but is pisse off, if somebody else tries to do the same. After all HE is good's chosen / the only person who deserves this honor/... or whatever reason might come into his twisted mind. It's called sociopathy.

--

Regarding warmonger penalty itself: I really think, there should be a modifier that takes the actual era into account. At ancient and classical era, wars should have way less impact on the global warmonger status than at later eras (with increasing impact).
After all, war was a common and ACCEPTED and even EXPECTED leader behaviour. If at all, military inferior civs should be 'frightened' more often and therefore willing to accept unfavourable trading deals to appease the local bully.

 

[Suicidekills]

I agree there needs to be some tweaking. I'm playing a Prince, Pangea+, Standard game as Assyria against America, Russia, Indonesia, Carthage, Spain, Sweden, and Babylon. Washington was my neighbor and his capital was 10 tiles away, so of course, I thought that'll be my first expansion. Well then he settles another city right in between us. So I wipe him off the map, while breaking a promise about troops on the border. (I don't normally warmonger so I was making rookie mistakes....)

Yea well once you break that promise with troops along the border say goodbye to any chance of being friends with anyone else ever again lol. That part of the game annoys me so much because usually I'm just about to declare war the next turn and then the question pops up. So I can either forget about the war (accepting the fact that I mobilized my army for no reason), declare war right there (and have half of my army injured or dead), or declare war the next turn and have everybody hate you the entire game..... decisions....decisions.....

 

[Jaymax]

Adjusting the penalty for different eras is a good idea, and one that I'd support.

 

[Harald Hairfair]

I'm playing a game right now with Assyria on pangea standard king. I DoWed Venice, my closest neighbor and took his capitol. He has one city state to the east left, and while my army was waiting for reinforcements, Babylon DoW's me. I was taken off guard, because this probably has to do with he does not like me and he just settled a city south of Venice Capitol and feel intimidated.
Meanwhile, at the opposite side of the map, Bismark is running his blietzkrieg thing and he already wiped out two civs. Guess who's BFF's? That's right, me and Bismark is having an alliance, which will eventually explode into a massive grand war of epic proportions in the late game. Looking forward to

 

[Franchize]

I disagree the fact that you wipe out a civilization should make you a warmonger 4 life. I mean really look at Germany current day. There were other things you could have done like denoncing and getting some play nice parties in your war effort if you were worried about diplomatics. If I go warmonger though I'm wiping a civ out for the very reason that the rest are next which is excatly why it's coded into the game it's making the game harder.

Also if you wipe someone out before meeting everyone else you won't have this problem.

 

[Suicidekills]

Double standards are not limited to Civ5, you know? Just take a look at the real world...
No, seriously! It might be annoying, but it is not so unbelievable that a leader wants to conquer the world but is pisse off, if somebody else tries to do the same. After all HE is good's chosen / the only person who deserves this honor/... or whatever reason might come into his twisted mind. It's called sociopathy.

I get that, but I consider Zulu as one of the top 3 warmonger civs, and I'm pretty sure the developers created them that way. That being said out of all those civs I was playing against that I had the warmonger penalty with the Zulu were the only ones who disliked warmongers. That's like saying ghandi or siam tolerates warmongers.
If them disliking or tolerating warmongers is based on the what's happening in that current game, then that's fine, but If it's based on the civ (which it looks like it is most of the time), then zulu disliking warmongers makes no sense.

Regarding warmonger penalty itself: I really think, there should be a modifier that takes the actual era into account. At ancient and classical era, wars should have way less impact on the global warmonger status than at later eras (with increasing impact).
After all, war was a common and ACCEPTED and even EXPECTED leader behaviour. If at all, military inferior civs should be 'frightened' more often and therefore willing to accept unfavourable trading deals to appease the local bully.

That would make the game a little more interesting although not sure how well that would work with the current AI situation.

 

[Suicidekills]

I disagree the fact that you wipe out a civilization should make you a warmonger 4 life. I mean really look at Germany current day. There were other things you could have done like denoncing and getting some play nice parties in your war effort if you were worried about diplomatics. If I go warmonger though I'm wiping a civ out for the very reason that the rest are next which is excatly why it's coded into the game it's making the game harder.

Also if you wipe someone out before meeting everyone else you won't have this problem.

I don't know about that. Just because you went to war in the past doesn't mean years later you should still be labeled as a warmonger. For example look at Germany today are they still warmongers because of what they did in WWII?? I don't think so. Also wars aren't only started because your'e dreaming of world conquest. The reason I attacked France that game is because he settled a city next to where I wanted to put my city, so it was on. Fighting over territory is just one a few reasons to go to war. Obviously, other disagreements can arise.

 

[Randall_Flagg]

Well if you wipe someone completely out, the AI's really dont like that. Generally I just leave them with some weak city thats pillaged with no army left. Avoid a good bit of penalty that way. Someone else can come wipe them off the map afterwards.

I have no issue with having a penelty. It is just the length of the penelty. I knew when I did it, Russia and Hawaii would never be freindly. But the other civs had never met me or heard of me. By the time I found them even the dusty notes of those 2 civs would have to be dug out by really big history nerds.

 

[DuseCutter]

Yea well once you break that promise with troops along the border say goodbye to any chance of being friends with anyone else ever again lol. That part of the game annoys me so much because usually I'm just about to declare war the next turn and then the question pops up. So I can either forget about the war (accepting the fact that I mobilized my army for no reason), declare war right there (and have half of my army injured or dead), or declare war the next turn and have everybody hate you the entire game..... decisions....decisions.....

That's pretty much the exact situation I had. The question came 1 turn too early. I should have just Declared when he asked. I didn't understand the power of siege towers at the time. Live and learn.