Experiences With the New Grievance System?

[steveg700]

Before GS we could get in a war during the ancient era and no diplo penalty would be applied. Now, we have grievances. What I've found is that at the early eras where no casus belli is available, it's very easy to find myself on the end of a denouncement chain by virtue of declaring a war and capturing (razed or not). This seems to be capable of generating 200< grievances, which do not seem to mitigated by era. They're supposed to fade faster, but that doesn't offset the denouncement chain effect.

The diplomatic consequences on third-party civ's are supposed weighed against their relationships with you and the aggrieved civ, but as far as I can tell it does't even seem to require one civ to even know of the existence of a the civilization with the grief to sour a burgeoning relationship.

 

[Sostratus]

And the diplomatic consequences don't even seem to require one civ to even know of the existence of a the civilization with the grief.

I had a game where I met everyone but America, and may have bulldozed a few Macedonian cities to make room for Hansatopia, and I sacked a city state, seriously aggravating the players I knew. But I later met america, and Teddy has no negative opinion of me. So perhaps they need to know the generator of the grievances, and not the aggrieved.

 

[steveg700]

Civopedia says that attacking city-states only generates grievances with civ's that have met the city-state.

 

[acluewithout]

Hansatopia.

Love it.

 

[Sostratus]

Love it.

I'll have you know that on this latest Germany run (because the other ones got too boring) out of 20 cities, here's the base adjacency tally:
14 - 1
13 - 2
12 - 3
11 - 4
10 - 6
9 - 2
8 - 1 (no excuse for this failure)
7 - 1 (literally just a crap fill city so those pesky canadians stop putting cities on that piece of coast. I feel revolted by it.)

In other words, 80% are double digits. Although I did learn that a 2x tesla IZ is providing +4 production to a city 7 tiles away... from a coal plant. Perhaps the coal plant has a 6 range aura of base strength 0?

On topic: my biggest beef with the grievances system is that I don't have any anchor point for what 100 grievances mean. It might as well be fake internet points or pesos. And I do definitely miss no penalty ancient era wars. It just made sense that everyone agreed, a gentleman's 3000BC conquest was nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Victoria]

So perhaps they need to know the generator of the grievances, and not the aggrieved.

A few weeks ago I tested the grievance system. I attacked The Incans and gained the grievances against them before scythia met either me or them. Then Scythia met the Incans and showed no I’ll will to me. When I then met Scythia and they showed no grievance against me on the first turn (how can you have grievance against an unknown?) but then on the next turn they had I’ll feeling due to me causing grievance on others but no direct grievances against me.
I then met the Ottomans who had not met Scythia and they showed no ill will until they me Scythia.
Your teddy example see,s strange... and he knew everyone? Maybe he had that warmonger agenda

Civopedia says that attacking city-states only generates grievances with civ's that have met the city-state.

The parameters say grievances for envoys not meeting. However you were initially on taking about the diplomacy side of grievances... where you were saying the early grievances do not seem to decay. It may be you are getting the 2 things mixed. Grievances against you in the ancient era do decay a little faster but the killer is the diplomacy tied to those is the same old warmongering diplomacy rules... so the actual grievances disappear fast but there used to be no ill will / warmongering for you taking a city in the ancient era and now there is.... and it decays a 1 point per every 2 turns so the grievance system is harsher than it used to be.
To me it is just wrong there should be such large I’ll feelings in the ancient era while the grievances themselves decay so fast.

In fact the whole grievances against others is very annoying. For example you need to convert 7 English cities to your religion. So you convert them for 210 grievances against England and everyone has ill feeling for this against you.

The grievance system is good, the diplomacy system still sucks big time. I have 5 troops guarding my border with Sweden and on the other side of the border Sweden has 6.... she has moe troops on the border than I.... but I get no grievances against her but she gets them against me unless I move my troops..... that’s just wrong.

 

[Sostratus]

I have 5 troops guarding my border with Sweden and on the other side of the border Sweden has 6.... she has moe troops on the border than I.... but I get no grievances against her but she gets them against me unless I move my troops..... that’s just wrong.

This part drives me nuts. I think the biggest problem is the text is essentially "you're totally gonna surprise attack me!!!!" and your response is either "you're right [WAR]" or "We mean no harm."
But the underlying check is against the mere presence of troops on the border, which the text doesn't really convey. And it's a bit silly, because it's not explained how far away your units need to move, nor if you can keep any.

And of course, the fact that we cannot ask the same of them. I would be much happier if the promise was simply you not actually declaring war on the party for X turns.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

And of course, the fact that we cannot ask the same of them. I would be much happier if the promise was simply you not actually declaring war on the party for X turns.

That's so much simpler a system I'm not sure why it wasn't adopted.

Say the promise is for 10 turns. If after 10 turns you still have troops on their border, they renew the request.

 

[Sostratus]

That's so much simpler a system I'm not sure why it wasn't adopted.

Say the promise is for 10 turns. If after 10 turns you still have troops on their border, they renew the request.

I think it would add a lot of upside to diplo favor if you could go to your local neighborhood warmonger and pay 30 favor or whatever to sign a non-aggression pact for 10-15 turns. That's enough time for you to pivot off of something else, get another round of units out, whatever. (Edit: non aggression pact = promise to not declare war discussed in the two posts above this) And then FXS could add the Ribbentrop factor by making some leader agendas willing to totally violate that.

"Montezuma broke their promise to you and has declared war! You gain 100 grievances against them."
Player: My expectations have been subverted

 

[steveg700]

This part drives me nuts. I think the biggest problem is the text is essentially "you're totally gonna surprise attack me!!!!" and your response is either "you're right [WAR]" or "We mean no harm."

Well, it's even worse because you're not just promising not to attack, but also to move the units away. It's a very lopsided situation.

A non-aggression pact would be a kind of reversal of a casus belli, with its breakage resulting in a grievance multiplier if broken, and rewarding with diplomatic favor if it's kept.

The problem is, as I was saying in the OP, the grievances for taking a single city are already so great, and so likely to turn all neutral civ's against you, that it's in-for-a-pound at that point.

 

[ReVonLohengramm]

One Casus Belli that I wish they would tweak is moving Protectorate War earlier in the civics tree. Right now its with Diplomatic Service (Renaissance Era) and the way that AI loves to invade city states I feel they're already gone at this point in the game.