Do you get a warmonger penalty if you denounce first

[apocalypse105]

So lets say you are france and you are on a island with greece siam and ghandi.


You allready declared war on Siam and took their capital and 2 cities and left them with 1 city.

greece and Siam hate eachother a lot and denounce eachother constantly Greece is my left neighbour(siam right) and He is my second target So i denounce him and ghandi becomes really pleased I have a declaration of friendship with him and a denounced enemies modifier...


I am planning to declare war on france but I was wondering If I will get called a warmonger by ghandi because when you dow 2 times some civs will found you a warmonger especially ghandi?

But now that we both hate greece should ghandi ignore my dow or not?


So basicly what I am asking is if I get a warmonger penalty with ghandi if I dow Greece who I denounced earlier and is denounced by Ghandi to.

Side information:

Siam has not a decleration of friendship with ghandi but I olso didn't saw a denouncement just a war.
SIam is friends with greece.

 

[apocalypse105]

Delete

 

[DaveMcW]

Nope, there's no way to remove the penalty.

Gandhi will probably still like you, because you denounced his enemy and signed a declaration of friendship. But you better have a plan to deal with him when those expire.

 

[apocalypse105]

Nope, there's no way to remove the penalty.

Gandhi will probably still like you, because you denounced his enemy and signed a declaration of friendship. But you better have a plan to deal with him when those expire.

Thats kinda a broken game mechanic isn it ?

 

[chazzycat]

that's kind of the point. You can't go around DOWing everyone and avoid being labeled a warmonger - you are warmongering!

 

[apocalypse105]

that's kind of the point. You can't go around DOWing everyone and avoid being labeled a warmonger - you are warmongering!

Declaring 2 times shouldn't give you a global wamronger hit thats my problem it ruins hole diplomacy.

Leaders should be angry if you dow some friends of them or at least persons who they care about... Not if you destroy their enemies

 

[chazzycat]

Well yeah, it does ruin diplomacy when you choose to be aggressive. That is because the game is balanced so that RAs are the counterpoint to aggression. Start too many wars, get bad relations, no RAs for you. Stay peaceful and friendly, you can sign lots of RAs. If the game allowed you to expand aggressively while staying friendly with everyone and signing RAs, it would be unbalanced in favor of aggression.

Also, doing something twice indicates a pattern of behavior and I think it makes perfect sense for the AI to be suspicious at that point. Keep in mind more warlike civs can be more forgiving as well. If it was Genghis instead of Gandhi you probably wouldn't have the same problem. Every game is different and judging the personalities of the leaders is part of the puzzle.

 

[Steelyglint]

My way of avoiding DOWing is getting a defencive pact with someone, then buying the civ you want to attack into war with the guy you got a pact with.

Don't do it all the time tho because it's just so filthy and because I'm not 100% about whether or not it works.

 

[apocalypse105]

My way of avoiding DOWing is getting a defencive pact with someone, then buying the civ you want to attack into war with the guy you got a pact with.

Don't do it all the time tho because it's just so filthy and because I'm not 100% about whether or not it works.

I recently played a game that made me question the warmonger penalty This is how it went:

I was france on a pangea and I had 2 close neighbours on the left ghandi on the right the ottomans .
The neigbhours of the ottomans where japan and iroquois.
Neighbour of india was Persia.

on a far part of the continent(still same continent) there is spain and polynesia.

Ottomans dow japan and iroquios a couple turns later he dows me. I capture 2 cities and his capital as revenge and make peace.

the game continous some wars are started by the AI and denounciations are starting.
Persia takes over most of india.

Diplomatic:

India, iroquois,japan, polynesia are all friends with me and with each other big friends

I denounce the ottomans all my friends do the same they all hate him...

Persia is friendly towards me.


After my decleration of friendship with the iroquois is expired I declare war on them and suspect a great change in diplomatic relation but it doesn't I get all his cities from a peace threathy(he is sitll in the game)

Japan,polynesia,india are still my friends except Iroquois(they are still friends with japan polynesia and india so he didn't denounced me) Persia is friendly towards me.

After that I DOW the ottomans but apperently I didn't get a warmonger penalty Everyone of my friends denounced the ottomans. Even india and polynesia are friendly.

So thats why I question it..

 

[nokmirt]

that's kind of the point. You can't go around DOWing everyone and avoid being labeled a warmonger - you are warmongering!

No, warmonger status should only last for that particular era. After every ERA they should reset and start over. For the simple fact that civs evolve over history, people in each new era think different than those in the last. It is stupid to have a warmonger status carry over through all of history. Wars do not last that long. The developers need to fix this, it is one big reason besides the AI and diplomacy, for people not playing CiV. I am not playing it again until the game is fixed. I am not nearly the only one.

The thing is this, yes my civ may have a warmonger in the early game, but later in the game my people may choose to go towards peaceful pursuits such as science and philosophy, understanding. Should the civ still be penalized as a warmonger because it waged war in ancient times ? No I do not believe so. For this to be the case is absolutely ridiculous. However if the civ deserves it in each era, then i could see it. The other thing that needs to change is that AI's who are warmongers and attack CSs and other AI civs also need to have warmonger attached to them for each ERA they start conflicts. It is not fair to have just the human controlled civ become a warmonger, while the AI can declare war at will with no penalty. Whoever or whatever programmer came up with this crap and calls that a balanced system for CiV is a moron. I am sorry but they are.

 

[Steelyglint]

No, warmonger status should only last for that particular era. After every ERA they should reset and start over. For the simple fact that civs evolve over history, people in each new era think different than those in the last. It is stupid to have a warmonger status carry over through all of history. Wars do not last that long.

Wars can last eras.

 

[shaglio]

No, warmonger status should only last for that particular era. After every ERA they should reset and start over. For the simple fact that civs evolve over history, people in each new era think different than those in the last. It is stupid to have a warmonger status carry over through all of history. Wars do not last that long. The developers need to fix this, it is one big reason besides the AI and diplomacy, for people not playing CiV. I am not playing it again until the game is fixed. I am not nearly the only one.

The thing is this, yes my civ may have a warmonger in the early game, but later in the game my people may choose to go towards peaceful pursuits such as science and philosophy, understanding. Should the civ still be penalized as a warmonger because it waged war in ancient times ? No I do not believe so. For this to be the case is absolutely ridiculous. However if the civ deserves it in each era, then i could see it. The other thing that needs to change is that AI's who are warmongers and attack CSs and other AI civs also need to have warmonger attached to them for each ERA they start conflicts. It is not fair to have just the human controlled civ become a warmonger, while the AI can declare war at will with no penalty. Whoever or whatever programmer came up with this crap and calls that a balanced system for CiV is a moron. I am sorry but they are.

While I agree that the “Warmonger” label shouldn’t last for the rest of the game (I wouldn’t call modern day Greece a warmonger because of what Alexander did back before the turn of the millennia), I don’t think it should last for the whole era.

What if a civ declares war on one turn, signs a peace treaty a few turns later, and then enters the next era on the following turn? They are labeled a warmonger for a handful of turns which seems appropriate for such a short war. But what about a civ that declares war just after entering a new era and then signs a peace treaty a few turns later? They get labeled a warmonger for the entire era for a war lasting a few years!?!?

Maybe the warmonger label should last for x turns depending on the game speed: 20 for quick, 30 for normal, 40 for epic, 60 for marathon or something.

 

[Scarpa]

I recently played a game that made me question the warmonger penalty This is how it went:

Did everyone else DOW the Iroquois along with you? I have had a couple games and one quite recently where I made sure any DOWs I did were against the civ everyone else had chosen to 'dogpile'. As a result everyone may have had a warmonger view of me, but I also had the 'went to war against a common foe' boost at the same time, and my guess is they cancelled out.

 

[Scarpa]

No, warmonger status should only last for that particular era. After every ERA they should reset and start over.

This doesn't make much sense because everyone transitions to new eras at different times, and wars can span entire eras, and transitions between eras.

There should be a more fine grained diplomatic response based on circumstances, did you declare, did you refuse peace, how much territory did you take, how many cities did you raze, etc. And even then there should be a decay on the diplomatic effect so in time even the most egregious warmongering in classical era should be a long forgotten memory 150 turns later.

 

[apocalypse105]

Did everyone else DOW the Iroquois along with you? I have had a couple games and one quite recently where I made sure any DOWs I did were against the civ everyone else had chosen to 'dogpile'. As a result everyone may have had a warmonger view of me, but I also had the 'went to war against a common foe' boost at the same time, and my guess is they cancelled out.

Nope I only declared war on the iroquois. When I declared war on the ottomans a lot of people olso declared war on him..

This doesn't make much sense because everyone transitions to new eras at different times, and wars can span entire eras, and transitions between eras.

There should be a more fine grained diplomatic response based on circumstances, did you declare, did you refuse peace, how much territory did you take, how many cities did you raze, etc. And even then there should be a decay on the diplomatic effect so in time even the most egregious warmongering in classical era should be a long forgotten memory 150 turns later.

Yeah that penalty should deffinitly be a certain turns and it shouldn't have a global effect if you declare war on someone who has friends there friends might get upset" you declared war on our friends"...

 

[Peets]

Warmonger is in relation with capturing capitals.
If you capture two capitals you most likely will get warmonger status.
If you avoid the capitals it takes much longer to receive it.

 

[apocalypse105]

Warmonger is in relation with capturing capitals.
If you capture two capitals you most likely will get warmonger status.
If you avoid the capitals it takes much longer to receive it.

That explain everything can you comfirm this in you're game?

 

[Peets]

That explain everything can you comfirm this in you're game?

These are observations and I cannot guarantee it.
But I have witnessed it many times that they AI changed their attitude to me right after I captured a capital.

 

[apocalypse105]

These are observations and I cannot guarantee it.
But I have witnessed it many times that they AI changed their attitude to me right after I captured a capital.

As soon as I finished playing my civ 4 game I am going to play a civlization 5 game and test it out declaring war twice and only capture cities not the capital and post the results. But i doubt it and if its true its wierd that they didn't made that more clear I mean how else can we play the game

 

[Peets]

Also denounce them a few turns before you attack