does the Warmonger penalty ever leave in BNW?

[darden]

I'm playing Atilla on a continents game, King.

early in the game, Korea settles its second city 6 tiles away from Attila's Court on the other side of a bay (but on the same landmass)... being the peacemonger I am, I just work around the Korean city and settle my second city to the east of that one, about 6 tiles away again (not in the same direction as Seoul).

but, hypocrites they are, this promptly freaks Korea out about my expansionist tendencies, and a few hundred years later, they declare war on me. it wasn't a terribly long war -- I obliterated Korea's military, and to give them a good thumping on the nose, I conquered that second city sitting across the bay from my capital and puppetted it (would have loved to just raze it, but razing cities is turned off in this game). in the peace settlement, I also demanded their third city, which they gave up as well.

now, 1000 years later and Polynesia (our neighbor on the continent) is still guarded towards me with a red line about hating warmongers. Korea even seems to have put it past them (though the AI might be lying judging by the cannons on our shared border), but every other country on the globe is friendly towards me.

so why isn't this diplomatic penalty with Polynesia going away?

 

[isau]

Polynesia really, really hates war mongers unless you are allied with them when you take the city. They're generally reliable allies otherwise, but yeah, once you make Kama mad he probably won't forgive you. Just part of his character. I've have had to punish him with a takeover more than once.

To prevent that in the future, bribe Korea to attack him first, or bribe Kama to go to war, or just make friends with him in general. If you can't do one of those three things, don't take any cities until you can (unless you don't care what he thinks of you).

 

[redwings1340]

If you haven't done anything else, it shouldn't go be too much. Polynesia also probably hates you for some other reasons along with the warmongering. Is it bright red or dark red? If it's dark red that probably means the penalty is relatively low and fading. Polynesia still probably covets your land though.

Taking only one city by force a long time ago really shouldn't be too big an issue, and even if the penalty is there, I doubt it's the driving force between your relationship with him at the moment.

The real question is: why are you playing Attila of all people with city razing disabled and while trying to be a peace monger?

 

[darden]

If you haven't done anything else, it shouldn't go be too much. Polynesia also probably hates you for some other reasons along with the warmongering. Is it bright red or dark red? If it's dark red that probably means the penalty is relatively low and fading. Polynesia still probably covets your land though.

Taking only one city by force a long time ago really shouldn't be too big an issue, and even if the penalty is there, I doubt it's the driving force between your relationship with him at the moment.

The real question is: why are you playing Attila of all people with city razing disabled and while trying to be a peace monger?

just an achievement game... wanted to get the achievement for discovering Satellites as Attila and figured it was a good reason to go for a science victory (and I generally peacemonger until I've got battleships, artillery, and bombers... at which point I roll over my nearest rival)

no city razing was an accident it's really vexing me... I'd go to war with Polynesia right now if I could raze all the cities.

 

[Fredgerd]

Wait, why are you avoiding war with Attilla? All his uniques are designed for warmongering and nothing else. Just going for novelty/challenge? If so, may I also recommend OCC Rome?

Edit: Nevermind

 

[Makavcio]

Warmonger diplo penalty is scaled with three factors:
- the % of (land*population) you take from your enemy plus capital_penalty, so if you take the 2nd and the 3rd city of a 4-city civ, your penalty will be huge; if you mouseover enemy city when at war, a tooltip will show the penalty (with beta patch enabled);
- diplo relations with affected civ (large reduction if you are together at war with the target);
- civ-specific warmonger attitude.

In my opinion, this system is completely broken. No matter how negligible the warmonger penalty is, AI will always treat you like a classic warmonger if you do not have a lot of positive modifiers to begin with. In early game, every city conquest will put you at dire odds with all civilizations that aren't already friendly towards you. It's extremely annoying. I can have open borders, embassies, 3000 years of friendship and when a civilization begins to suspect my warmongering (the lowest level of warmonger penalty), they just denounce me even if they tolerate warmongers.

And about the question from the topic, no, it seems that the penalty never disappears completely. Like in GnK, civs can hide the penalty but it will always be "visible" in worse monetary gain from trade and will resurface after 20 centuries if your relations take a serious hit from other factors.

 

[Smokeybear]

The diplo hit that TRULY never disappears, ever, is "you were caught spying on them". I see that one remaining bright red from the first spy era until the end of a marathon game, without ever fading or being forgotten. Seems silly, since in reality, it is one of the least important and most quickly forgotten 'offenses' between civilizations. You may remember who invaded your country and slaughtered your citizens for hundreds of years, but who remembers the anonymous twerp who stole your secret technology for making deep-fried hummus? Seriously. No idea why Firaxis thought it should remain such a huge diplo hit for eternity, no matter what.

 

[NASAROG]

I hate the warmonger dynamic. Because of how it is implemented, I end up at war with everyone at one point or another.

 

[Securion]

Im playing "warmonger" civs more and more because its usually turning into an all out war sooner or later anyway.
Especially the new Germany can be extremely powerful when at war with most of the world. Hansa + traderoutes with citystates is very nice, especially if combined with Freedoms Treaty Organization tenet (Gain 4 more Influence per turn with City-States you have a trade route with). With it you can use your gold on military upkeep while still maintaining your citystate allies.

 

[Gamewizard]

If you are going to warmonger (even a little) you need to give the other civs a reason not to hate you. Gift them resources or gold to get the positive modifiers. With the beta you can also build landmarks in their territories for more positive modifiers. Also, try to get a friend to join in on the war with you so that the warmonger penalty is split between you two.

In my recent Germany game I conquered Denmark's capital early, left him with one city. The world denounces me. I sell off excess resources for 2 or 3 gpt to a couple different civs to get the positive modifiers. Time passes and then Rome conquers Netherlands' capital. I denounce Rome and then liberate Amsterdam. Rome, now weakened, gives me lots of gpt, which I then spread to the other civs for more positive modifiers. Netherlands loves me for liberating them so they ask for friendship. Our friendship becomes another positive modifier with most of the other civs since the Netherlands is friends with them too. Soon I am allied with everyone but Denmark and Rome...which lasts until ideologies split the world up again. Good thing Panzers are only 20 turns away! 7 movement that ignore zone of control?!? Yes please, I'd like some more!

 

[darden]

thanks for the feedback!

in this game, it was me, Korea, and Polynesia on the same continent... Poly and Korea were buddy-buddies at the time, and Korea declared war on me, so no opportunity to bribe others into going to war with me.

ironically, in the modern era, me and Korea are now BFF's and Korea has been at war with Polynesia off and on since the Renaissance. (god love 'em, but Kama's got the absolute worst tendency of dotting the map with small cities in random locations right in the middle of everyone's empires, eventually making everyone hate him. if I hadn't accidentally disabled city razing, I would have gone to war with him ages ago and burned down the 2 cities he has bordering my capital)

edit: imho, the warmonger penalty really needs to be reduced by like 90% if the other civ was the one who surprise attacked you.

 

[Gamewizard]

edit: imho, the warmonger penalty really needs to be reduced by like 90% if the other civ was the one who surprise attacked you.

But just because they attacked you that doesn't mean that you need to take cities. Instead, destroy as many units as you can, pillage all their tiles, and take as many civilians hostage as you can. Eventually they will offer peace, probably with a city attached. If you don't want the city, then you can usually change the deal for gold/gpt/resources. All this comes with ZERO warmonger penalty.

 

[funkymunky]

I think the warmonger penalty still applies even when a civ offers the player a city for peace (or maybe that mechanic is broken), because the last game I played as Persia, America declared war on me, captured one of my cities, and after a war where we swapped that same city several times, America finally sued for peace and offered me their city of Boston, which I took because it had truffles. Then, the following turn, Egypt and Rome denounced me for being a warmonger (again!), even though I didn't capture any more cities militarily (except for recapturing my own city).

To add salt to the wound, I didn't hear them denounce America at all even though Washington declared war on me and captured one of my cities! I suppose the fact that I already have 8 cities & America had only 3 might have something to do with it, but it seems the warmonger penalty calculation is completely broken by using that territory % modifier that they use.

 

[NinjaGnat]

I think the warmonger penalty still applies even when a civ offers the player a city for peace (or maybe that mechanic is broken), because the last game I played as Persia, America declared war on me, captured one of my cities, and after a war where we swapped that same city several times, America finally sued for peace and offered me their city of Boston, which I took because it had truffles. Then, the following turn, Egypt and Rome denounced me for being a warmonger (again!), even though I didn't capture any more cities militarily (except for recapturing my own city).

To add salt to the wound, I didn't hear them denounce America at all even though Washington declared war on me and captured one of my cities! I suppose the fact that I already have 8 cities & America had only 3 might have something to do with it, but it seems the warmonger penalty calculation is completely broken by using that territory % modifier that they use.

This sounds like 2 bugs with the warmonger penalty

1. Capturing the same city many times adds warmonger points
2. Recapturing YOUR OWN city also gives warmonger points. Wha????

 

[Liegence]

This is probably my biggest current complaint about the game. If someone settles you into the corner and declares war on you and you happen to take one of their cities you might as well just go domination because you will be eternally hated.

Last game I played Spain and Mongolia were at war with The Aztecs who then subsequently declared war on me. I was friendly with both, and had even given them gifts of gold when requested for the diplo bonus. At the time I have two cities. I take one city from the Aztecs and immediately everyone in the world that I know, including Spain and Mongolia, hates me because I am a warmonger and I expanded cities to fast. To boot, I lost the gift diplo bonuses as well. Just like that, diplo hate that never goes away.

Warmonger penalties are too harsh. They should also consider diplo relations with the attacked civ, not just war allies. It should consider proximity to the event. And they should resolve faster getting back to normal as relationships heal incrementally.

 

[joshua43214]

But just because they attacked you that doesn't mean that you need to take cities. Instead, destroy as many units as you can, pillage all their tiles, and take as many civilians hostage as you can. Eventually they will offer peace, probably with a city attached. If you don't want the city, then you can usually change the deal for gold/gpt/resources. All this comes with ZERO warmonger penalty.

This does not always work. The AI's willingness to give peace is based on a bunch of factors. I have fought 200+ turn wars because the AI would not give peace. Some civs like Greece and the Ottomans will never stop even after you take all their cities and leave them with a crappy one tile city in the middle of the ocean.

Ya, the mechanic is very broken, and the patch did not improve things at all

 

[Gamewizard]

The AI looks at military strength when deciding for peace. Wipe out his units and don't lose yours and you will have a greater military strength. Of course this is harder on higher difficulties.

 

[greygamer]

My understanding of diplomatic hits for capturing cities is that the fewer cities they have the bigger the diplomatic hit. So the fact he only had 3 cities was probably what went against you.

 

[killmeplease]

in my last game i was attacking civs which everyone denounced (zulu and then poland), taken a number of cities from them (~5), razed a couple, and still had zero warmonger penalty. it seems if the AI has friendship with you and it hates the civ you are declaring at, it wont be angry if you took some cities.

 

[isau]

in my last game i was attacking civs which everyone denounced (zulu and then poland), taken a number of cities from them (~5), razed a couple, and still had zero warmonger penalty. it seems if the AI has friendship with you and it hates the civ you are declaring at, it wont be angry if you took some cities.

This is basically correct. I've had games where I conquered most of the world before the AI caught wise to me. In fact, they were cheering me on. The trick is to make sure there are civs in the game they hate more than you. During a domination game they will eventually figure out what's up but if done right in a game of 8 civs the whole world shouldn't be angry prior to the fall of the first 4 or 5 civs.