[GS] Any way I could have handled this differently? (CS and grievances)

[Big J Money]

Khmer DOWed an ally and I was dragged into the war. Khmer is suzerain of Mexico City. I am allies with 4/6 other civs with no grievances.

I don't need to do anything to Khmer because they only have 1 city and are very weak. But they have the highest diplo points, so I decided I can use this as an opportunity to take Mexico City away from them.

I take Mexico City (still during the war) and I see that either settling it or razing it will both give me 100 grievances with all players! I decide to raze since it's too far away from me to be useful.

Now all my allies have a -60 relations penalty with me for both "grievances" and "grievances from others". That "from others" one is the real killer.

This seems pretty lame, #1 that I would get so many grievances for defeating a city state that DOWed me, and maybe #2 that a first time global offense causes so much penalty via the "grievances from others" penalty.

Was there any other way I could have handled this other than just leaving Mexico City completely alone? I doubt if I would have captured it and then given it to Khmer it would have helped.

 

[reddishrecue]

You shouldn't have taken Mexico city at all. I would've tried domination since they are weak.

 

[Leyrann]

You conquered a nation in the war that hadn't done anything against you except for listening to their suzerain.

They're not an outpost of the Khmer, they're an independent nation that is influenced by the Khmer. You're Germany, invading Belgium to weaken France's position.

If you want to do something about the Khmer earning diplomatic favor without tanking your own diplomatic standing, the best way to go about it is to overturn their suzerainty of Mexico City through use of envoys and spies. That said, they likely get most of their diplomatic favor from their Diplomatic Quarter, and you can't exactly do something about that.

Also, note that if you're declared friends or allies with someone, if you refresh the DoF (and alliance) on the turn it expires, the AI will almost always accept, even if they have an extreme amount of negative opinion modifiers or hundreds of grievances. This is quite exploitable when it comes to religious victory.

 

[Big J Money]

They're not an outpost of the Khmer, they're an independent nation that is influenced by the Khmer. You're Germany, invading Belgium to weaken France's position.

That makes sense. It seems the game should allow for some way to punish the value of a city state that DOWs you without completely conquering them. Like maybe a mechanic where you occupy them during the war, and when the war ends, they lose all (or half) of their envoys from everyone, and lose all envoys from the occupier. Maybe that would make war too strong though. It's already so good for so many victory types.

That said, they likely get most of their diplomatic favor from their Diplomatic Quarter, and you can't exactly do something about that.

I could pillage the district and remain at war with them, but I don't know if that would actually affect the diplomatic favor they get.

Also, thanks for the tip about refreshing alliances on the expiration turn!

 

[reddishrecue]

I was just saying that you should've taken Khmer because this also used to happen in Civ 5 to me where everyone got mad at me for taking a city state. They probably won't get mad at you for taking the Khmer since they all are in the mutual military struggle.

 

[Big J Money]

For some reason only one of my allies was actually in the war (I think because he started it and he wasn't allied with my other allies). But you're probably right. I bet that I wouldn't have gotten any more than 100 grievances from other civs for taking Khmer's capital :-/. I think that's why this seems a bit weird to me. I can understand a global penalty for conquering Mexico City, but 100 grievances feels a bit steep. Maybe 50 grievances, but it gets worse the more CS you conquer.

 

[Archon_Wing]

It doesn't make any sense to take over Mexico City. If you think Khmer is going to win diplomatically, then just take them out of the game, and then all their envoys will be destroyed, allowing you to take it over more easily as suzerain.

Who cares about grievances if you lose anyways? Although if they're not building the Statue of Liberty and don't have at least 15 points, they're not really winning and it's unlikely they could win any competition or overcome the "take away points" votes.

 

[Midori]

If you don't want grievances the best way to do war is pillaging

 

[Big J Money]

It doesn't make any sense to take over Mexico City. If you think Khmer is going to win diplomatically, then just take them out of the game, and then all their envoys will be destroyed, allowing you to take it over more easily as suzerain.

My reasoning was that I wanted to keep my allies (and maintain neutral relations with other civs) since I was going for cultural victory and didn't need unnecessary war. Surely it would have been much worse for me diplomatically to make Khmer go extinct than Mexico City? Thanks also for the tips, I'm not really sure how much of a threat the AI is when it comes to diplo victories. It sounds like I really didn't need to do anything.

 

[aieeegrunt]

If you don't want grievances the best way to do war is pillaging

This is one of the biggest (and best) paradigm shifts Civ6 introduced that seems to have flown under the radar. It took me a while to figure out. Often it’s far more rewarding to slot the Ork Policy Cards that boost pillaging, loot everything, and leave cities untaken so you don’t have the grieves.

 

[Leyrann]

This is one of the biggest (and best) paradigm shifts Civ6 introduced that seems to have flown under the radar. It took me a while to figure out. Often it’s far more rewarding to slot the Ork Policy Cards that boost pillaging, loot everything, and leave cities untaken so you don’t have the grieves.

Agreed. While I remember there being discussion about pillaging, I think even before the game's release, it took me several years to recognize how powerful it really was, and even now I often still forget.

I know that in high rank competitive play, it's common to actually leave cities at zero health (meaning no city strike) but untaken until every improvement tile has been pillaged simply because it's so strong (not sure if they also pillage districts if they plan to keep the city, as those take more time to rebuild).

 

[UWHabs]

Agreed. While I remember there being discussion about pillaging, I think even before the game's release, it took me several years to recognize how powerful it really was, and even now I often still forget.

I know that in high rank competitive play, it's common to actually leave cities at zero health (meaning no city strike) but untaken until every improvement tile has been pillaged simply because it's so strong (not sure if they also pillage districts if they plan to keep the city, as those take more time to rebuild).

It's almost always worth delaying a capture to pillage. Fully pillaging a campus or IZ can net you almost a full tech, that's just too valuable as an immediate gain compared to the slight science you gain from not pillaging. The only times it's really not worth it is if they have some units nearby and are shooting back at you - it's not worth pillaging if it means they can destroy your bombard or crossbow, in those cases I'd rather get the city sooner and give my units friendly territory to heal in.

 

[aieeegrunt]

It's almost always worth delaying a capture to pillage. Fully pillaging a campus or IZ can net you almost a full tech, that's just too valuable as an immediate gain compared to the slight science you gain from not pillaging. The only times it's really not worth it is if they have some units nearby and are shooting back at you - it's not worth pillaging if it means they can destroy your bombard or crossbow, in those cases I'd rather get the city sooner and give my units friendly territory to heal in.

This is the calculus I perform as well. I often have a builder with one charge as part of an invasion force if I intend on keeping a city as the Unpillager

I’ve gotten tons of gold from pillaging a single mine before, and basicallly a free tech or civic sometimes from a single pillage

 

[reddishrecue]

This is why I like limes because you can kill units that want to pillage your improvements better with better walls. If enemies have good walls you also have to be careful since units can die from just pillaging.

 

[Leyrann]

This is why I like limes because you can kill units that want to pillage your improvements better with better walls. If enemies have good walls you also have to be careful since units can die from just pillaging.

I could see this be relevant in multiplayer, but in singleplayer I've never been threatened enough for that to be something I even need to consider. I usually don't even bother building walls at all unless I want to grab the extra tourism for a culture victory.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Also you csn just take the grievances modifier and live with it.
-60 decays really fast.
It's a lot worse when you reach 150 and above.
Plus you also gotta consider whether or even matters.
Sure if you wanna play cultural and secure allies+open borders you might wanna think twice about it, but otherwise it doesnt really matter in the long run.
If anything, grievances should matter a lot more than it currently does.

 

[reddishrecue]

I could see this be relevant in multiplayer, but in singleplayer I've never been threatened enough for that to be something I even need to consider. I usually don't even bother building walls at all unless I want to grab the extra tourism for a culture victory.

Not only that, it would save you some money along with conscription. Walls don't require any maintenance costs so if you're not trying to build when the budget is low, walls can be a good option.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I rarely need walls too.
Either I build them as @Leyrann says for some tourism (and even that is often stretching it), or in the rare case that I'm doing some sort of a greedy build and need my single fronter city to be impregnable in the meantime.

Walls are my personal biggest pet peeve in civ 6.
It's horrible design when their sole purpose is to act as a big f*** you for the AI, who relies excessively on them and is likewise incapable of overcoming them.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I rarely need walls too.
Either I build them as @Leyrann says for some tourism (and even that is often stretching it), or in the rare case that I'm doing some sort of a greedy build and need my single fronter city to be impregnable in the meantime.

Walls are my personal biggest pet peeve in civ 6.
It's horrible design when their sole purpose is to act as a big f*** you for the AI, who relies excessively on them and is likewise incapable of overcoming them.

I don’t build walls because it’s too much of an I Win button against the AI

 

[Leyrann]

Not only that, it would save you some money along with conscription. Walls don't require any maintenance costs so if you're not trying to build when the budget is low, walls can be a good option.

If my budget is low, I'm not building walls because I'm building commercial hubs and harbors. With zero adjacency bonuses if needed. Trade routes (and to a lesser degree CH buildings) are by far the best way of fixing your budget.

For reference: a low budget for me is any gpt less than the turn number in the first 100 turns (at standard game speed), after that it quickly starts rising, and by turn 200 I'll consider anything below 500 gpt to be a low budget.