Do you care about warmongering penalties or do you attack whenever you feel like it?

[stinkubus]

The map gives plenty of gold prior to hubs or harbors in like 80-90% of my games. Hubs and harbors create the surplus gold that allows me to upgrade at the next relevant tech, but they are rarely needed just to cover expenses. Between city states, tile improvements, clearing barb camps, pillaging, and extorting the AI via peace deals there are plenty of ways to get gold.

 

[ezzlar]

Trade routes in Civ 4 with a bonus for long time peace was a good reason to avoid war. In Civ 6 I keep trade internally.

So not that strong incentive to be liked in Civ 6.

 

[Ovidious]

I tried to not get penalties, but by the time you are under permanent denouncement, I said why not? I've tried peaceful games just to have someone denounce me for having a wonder or some other silly reason. Now I just go to war on whomever denounced me first.

Let's see, I do not need an AI for trading as I can open trade routes with city states or I keep them internally. I do not get techs from AI's. Any time they want to trade it seems to be two or more of my lux's for maybe one of theirs and a bit of gold - a lot from me and junk from them, not worth it.

I sometimes play what I call caveman level - me see, me take. It's too bad too as in the past Civ games I most times would try to play peacefully.

 

[Esperr]

I play on Emporer. Untill you get to the point where you can spam hubs....gold is life.

I mean I played on deity, now I just play on Emperor because you can just screw around. Gold is life for what? Thats the point I was trying to make. I agree with stinkubus, the ambient gold from the map is plenty even without hub spam, gold isn't tied to tech anymore. It can help you rush GP's for SV, but even without GP spam your still winning an SV on 180 to 200ish. And what games are you playing where your not already hub spamming by t40?

 

[Art Morte]

I do wish there were more reasons to avoid warmonger penalties.

Maybe you could get gold-per-turn deducted according to warmonger penalties, to resemble international trade sanctions, as in place against Russia or North Korea currently in real life?

 

[bmrigs]

I only denounce and declare war then they persist in spreading their religion into my lands.

 

[bladex]

i disable it altogether and do whatever the hell i want

 

[Morningcalm]

Unfortunately, diplomacy doesn't matter since any disapproving AI that wage war on you (jointly or otherwise) are easy to beat in combat anyway. Even on deity, which is sad. In Civ IV diplomacy mattered because the AI knew how to fight properly (well, at least since Beyond the Sword). So it was important not to get too much on people's bad side, or your civilization could be attacked from all sides. In VI I'm regularly attacked in joint wars and I just wipe the AI out in retaliation.

 

[Esperr]

The issue is theres no reason to be bro's with an A.I. The only things you can really do with them are trade for luxury. There are things like research pacts, but realistically I don't think I have ever even done one in SP. The benefits of just sacking somebody and how easy it is always outweight the political benefit of trying to bro up.

 

[Tech Osen]

I don't care but it depends on my mood. Sometimes I like to watch the world burn and at other times I try to keep friends just for a bit of extra challenge. After all it is more challenging to make friends than conquer the world. The ones that can't be reasoned with can die in a fire though, like China en Aztecs.

 

[Captain Pugwash]

If they send a settler to forward-settle and reduce my available expansion options, well, my trigger finger begins to itch and I am going to declare war on them whatever the penalty. I mean , why would I wait until they create the city and then have to capture it when I can steal their settler and build where I like ?
Some of these opponents denounce you just because you have more Great People than them. It's kind of a hint that their status as friendly or not cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Disgustipated]

I do care about WM penalties unless I'm planning on a domination victory game. If my goal is any other victory type, I won't war after the classical age if I can help it.

They will hate you regardless, warmonger or not.

Not true. Before the last patch, I've managed to get every Civ except 1 (Persia who isn't easy to please) as my ally. And running Arsenal of Democracy card as well. sweet. Of course the last patch messed this up. Oh well.

 

[cazaderonus]

Why do i read so many "i dont care i will be hated by everyone anyway" comments ?

I end almost all my games with 4/5 friendly ais. Often get them from the start too. Modifiers are obvious and displayed, it s easy enough to manipulate.

 

[Hammurabbit]

I think in Civ 6 diplomacy is certainly a "nice to have" rather than a "critical must". I wish it was more important to find and keep friends and allies, to make the diplomatic game more interesting.
Given that, I don't care too much about warmonger penalties. I pursue whatever strategy that suits me and usually that ends up pissing off the AI in various ways anyway. It doesn't impact the success of my strategy too much anyway.

 

[Spudsie74]

Without functional AI (or functional diplomacy), it is kind of pointless to care about your (AI) neighbors. They mostly end up as friends or allies, as I try to confine my greediest Civ gouging wars to the first 100 turns. By that time, if I'm not toast, I'm usually the biggest Civ on the planet, and most of my neighbors want to be friends...at least until the all gang up on me at once. As has been said over and over, "Early war is good policy." Just don't get dragged into a looooooong war. Keep 'em short & sweet.

 

[Victoria]

Early war is good policy."

Stock up on amenities and make it a long war from a distance is quite a nasty trick. Get the coliseum then declare war on Gilgamesh on the other side of the planet and watch him turn revolting.
If they are closer, sack their lands which ups war wearyness a lot.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Why do i read so many "i dont care i will be hated by everyone anyway" comments ?

I end almost all my games with 4/5 friendly ais. Often get them from the start too. Modifiers are obvious and displayed, it s easy enough to manipulate.

Incidentally this can be affected by map size.

If you play on a small map which defaults to 6 players, you automatically get hated if you capture 2 capitals, since that plus yours equals 3/6 capitals. That makes the AI activate the "we are winning. they fear us" early and diplomacy is impossible.

Here Trajan and I had a good first meeting as he met me from another landmass but then once he realized I had dominated my continent, diplomacy fell apart. Note that we would have easily been friends without it.

Whereas on a normal map if you did the same thing, you'd only own 3/8 capitals, which isn't enough for them to think you are winning. And it's not much harder.

On bigger maps, it's entirely possible that some leaders don't even know you wiped out someone and thus more manageable there as well.

In general diplomacy is easier on maps where you can kill people before anyone knows that you did.

 

[zhivik]

The big issue I see with warmongering penalty is that it isn't really a blunder. In Civ 5, you could face a global trade embargo if you were too aggressive, which would cripple your gold income immediately. In Civ 6, you can trade with anyone that your are not at war with, regardless how much they hate you. Besides, there are enough civics that can provide you with a hefty gold revenue, even if you only have internal trade routes. As long as you don't get heavier penalties, warmongering won't matter.

Some ways to deal with this could be to make warmongering affect other game aspects. Here are a few suggestions:

• heavy decrease in international tourism (you don't go to countries that conquer others) that will affect your culture victory race;
• greater likelihood of AI civs allying against you, along the "the enemy of my enemy" line. This would require more diplomatic options, like a temporary alliance for a specific purpose (war against Civ X, for instance), with much lower thresholds than a permanent alliance;
• massive damages from espionage (everyone would target you first), with a preference for the more malicious options, like inciting rebellion or sabotaging production;
• more aggressive religious warfare - no one would mind if your civ is converted.

Definitely not an exhaustive list, but there is a lot you can do even within the current game setup. In fact, some parts, like the tourism penalty, could be introduced even through a mod (if warmongering score is above x, international tourism output falls by y%, maybe adjusted for how much you are above the threshold).

 

[Tech Osen]

What bothers me the most about the warmongering accusations is the hypocrisy. AI's that go to war every few turns should not be pointing fingers if I declare war to purge my lands of apostels when I asked them to bugger off politely...

 

[Spudsie74]

What bothers me the most about the warmongering accusations is the hypocrisy. AI's that go to war every few turns should not be pointing fingers if I declare war to purge my lands of apostels when I asked them to bugger off politely...

I always thought that hypocrisy was an integral part of international diplomacy.