alpha wolf 64
Byte me
I love when you liberate a city, yet they still hate you for warmongering. Yo idiot, I just gave you your capitol back.
AI believes you're a warmonger...
- Thread starter Suicidekills
- Start date
VainoValkea
Emperor
I understand when civs hate you for warring, but I had the black mark of warmongering on me for the last game for a single short war... in which I captured Sofia, a City-State, with catapults and warriors. Sofia had no allies, no protectors - I only took it because I needed more lebensraum. (I only had two cities and nowhere to build the third one!).
Magean
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 474
This.
And this.
It think it is perfectly appropriate for AI to freak out when somebody is going berserk and wiping out civ after civ. And it is also perfectly appropriate that they form coalitions against the bloodthirsty guy.
The point is... they should forget sooner. Nobody is holding any grief on Greece for what Alexander did some 2340 years ago. In Civ's world, they would still be hated.
Perhaps you play a civ which is geared toward offensive at a specific era, you try to make good use of your units by conquering, and then just want to consolidate and aim for a different VC than conquest.
Currently that never ending warmonger penalty (actually, it decreases, but very slowly) mainly cripples early warmongers who would then like to stabilize and become peaceful neighbours.
And, yes, warmongering should be kinda era-dependent.
Well, there must be 2 or 3 threads on the subjects each day on the first page. We know that the developers sometimes look at what's going on here in this forums. So let's keep on with ranting about it, they'll eventually notice it and fix it in the fall patch.
Game keeps warmonger score for every civilization - if you cross some limit you are declared as warmonger. For example if you declare war you get +5 points. If you take city you get +x points etc. If civilization has just a few cities penalty is bigger, if civilization has many cities and you conquer one then penalty is not so big. There are different statuses: like: ok - bad - critical for number of points, the more +points you have more people think you are warmonger. Some civs tolerate warmongers more so these caps are higher. Every civ have its warmonger tolerance set in game, there's table somewhere in these forums - but its enough to know say peacueful leaders like Ghandi likes peace (obviously), while aggressive leaders like Atilla, Montezuma tolerate warmongers.
Every turn warmonger score is reduced for some small value - like 0.05, so it takes 100 turns for the AI to forget you declared war on someone. Not sure about exact details, you could google for exact numbers.
The point is, you need to be smart about declaring wars, denounce before attack, attack civs that everyone hates. Later on in game there are pacts based on ideologies generally, befriend few civs with your ideology and attack others etc.
Every turn warmonger score is reduced for some small value - like 0.05, so it takes 100 turns for the AI to forget you declared war on someone. Not sure about exact details, you could google for exact numbers.
The point is, you need to be smart about declaring wars, denounce before attack, attack civs that everyone hates. Later on in game there are pacts based on ideologies generally, befriend few civs with your ideology and attack others etc.
VainoValkea
Emperor
That warmongering score is busted, especially because it treats City-States like a civilization. Taking a single CS not protected or allied by anyone should be a minor transaction, not a huge war crime that'll be remembered with scorn millenia later.
DuseCutter
Chieftain
So I continued the game I mentioned earlier. I loaded it up and I hit Next Turn. Then lo and behold, Babylon offers a DoF! Huh? He's Neutral to me. Anyway, who am I the lowly embargoes Assyrian to look a gift horse in the mouth. A few turns later, he asks me to DoW on Carthage. I reluctantly agree because I want to stay his friend. So I send a token force and kill a unit or two then leave.
Meanwhile, Russia has adopted Freedom (Babylon and I are Order) and she becomes Hostile and starts massing troops on my southern border. She's testing my border for weakness and won't declare. So I vacate my closest city as a feint and make peace with Carthage. Russia declares. Which is great because I want the Wonder-laden Moscow. To top it off, for whatever reason, Carthage is now friendly with me. I assume it was because I didn't take one of her cities.
Before I take my first city from Russia, Indonesia declares war, but my Carthage army was back and I made short work of his invasion. Patriotic War was a must! Very useful. Anyway, I made peace so I can propagate my war with Russia. And, since Babylon is my buddy and he's hosting the WC, I got the embargo on me repealed!
So my whole point in sharing was to show that you CAN overcome the early penalties eventually. (It happened in the modern era in the 1980s. I disable time victories since my games tend to go longer with BNW.) Everyone still thinks I'm untrustworthy, but a couple don't think I'm a warmonger anymore.
Meanwhile, Russia has adopted Freedom (Babylon and I are Order) and she becomes Hostile and starts massing troops on my southern border. She's testing my border for weakness and won't declare. So I vacate my closest city as a feint and make peace with Carthage. Russia declares. Which is great because I want the Wonder-laden Moscow. To top it off, for whatever reason, Carthage is now friendly with me. I assume it was because I didn't take one of her cities.
Before I take my first city from Russia, Indonesia declares war, but my Carthage army was back and I made short work of his invasion. Patriotic War was a must! Very useful. Anyway, I made peace so I can propagate my war with Russia. And, since Babylon is my buddy and he's hosting the WC, I got the embargo on me repealed!
So my whole point in sharing was to show that you CAN overcome the early penalties eventually. (It happened in the modern era in the 1980s. I disable time victories since my games tend to go longer with BNW.) Everyone still thinks I'm untrustworthy, but a couple don't think I'm a warmonger anymore.
Magean
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 474
Very interesting game you tell us about, DuseCutter. 
However, your neighbours forgive you for your annihilation of America... more than 2000 years later. To recover diplomatically for a conquest you made in an era where such things were common, it took at least two millenniums and a playstyle heavily focused on diplomacy and relation improvement.
I guess that's a bit too much.
However, your neighbours forgive you for your annihilation of America... more than 2000 years later. To recover diplomatically for a conquest you made in an era where such things were common, it took at least two millenniums and a playstyle heavily focused on diplomacy and relation improvement.
I guess that's a bit too much.
To me its not that civs hate warmongers. Its the fact that everyone seems to hate warmongers, and once you are denounced and hated, there is no way to get back on other civs good sides. I have been trying to bribe with free resources, but the fact that we have traded seems not to allow for better relations.
I am good enough to conduct trade routes with, but not to allow open borders or give fair value for resources?
I am good enough to conduct trade routes with, but not to allow open borders or give fair value for resources?
Double standards are not limited to Civ5, you know?
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.
Pretty much this. And even today the present powers continue to call others warmongers while they are themselves busy in fighting pointless wars!
And people please denounce civs before you decide to declare war on them.
BroOfTheSun
Warlord
The warmonger penalty doesn't make sense to me. Early game, it should definitely fade away quickly. I don't understand how AI civs can stay made at you for thousands of years for being a warmonger from 2000 BC. Plus, early history is known for lots of wars. So making the warmonger penalty fade quickly allows you to warmonger (which is difficult enough in the early game), without having that penalty stick around for so long.
Warmonger penalty should stay around longer in late game (maybe when the World Congress is found).
...just repeating what a lot of people have said already.
Warmonger penalty should stay around longer in late game (maybe when the World Congress is found).
...just repeating what a lot of people have said already.
DuseCutter
Chieftain
Very interesting game you tell us about, DuseCutter.
However, your neighbours forgive you for your annihilation of America... more than 2000 years later. To recover diplomatically for a conquest you made in an era where such things were common, it took at least two millenniums and a playstyle heavily focused on diplomacy and relation improvement.
I guess that's a bit too much.
Totally agree that it took way too long! In fact, it had been so long, I never expected it to happen. I was surprised it was possible and elated that I actually overcame it. It made the frustration worth it and elevated the feeling of success. That said, it took too long!
Magean
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 474
No. Fortunately.
Bechhold
King
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Messages
- 725
Except even without the idiotic Warmongering penalty the AI still doesn't trade with you without wanting 3-4 other resources of yours for their one. It's stupid. CS were supposed to make international diplomacy more chess like yet if you attack a civ who is attacking a CS under your protection you are still penalized.
It seems like the problem is that the warmonger penalty is calculated by the number of cities, which is kinda flawed. Suleiman DOW'd me at turn 80, and he had only 3 cities by that point (He had already backstabbed and denounced me previously, so I knew we were going to war.) I figured he was going to be a threat throughout the entire game if I just let him be, so I took his capital and burned his second city, and left him with Ankara.
After that, Spain and Ethiopia DOW'd me, and I got denunciations from Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and Morocco. For fighting a self defense war.
I was going for a domination victory anyways, but it annoyed me that I lost all potential allies just like that.
After that, Spain and Ethiopia DOW'd me, and I got denunciations from Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and Morocco. For fighting a self defense war.
I was going for a domination victory anyways, but it annoyed me that I lost all potential allies just like that.
It does seem really unstable. In one game, I wiped out Songhai, razing half their cities in the process, took most of Denmark and Ethiopia, and yet I had no warmonger policy. Meanwhile in another game, I got declared war on, took one city, gave it back, yet wound up with the penalty.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
