GamersGlobal Dennis Shirk interview

[apocalypse105]

Why is it bad? You won't run into it all the time, your friends are least likely to envy as well.

Envy is controlled by a stat modifier related to the AI, not all neighbours will envy your lands, or rather, envy you enough to show in the tool tip.

What i'm referring to generally is that if you are taking cities in a war, the AI losing those cities will have a high probability of envying your lands, which is an indirect way of penalizing you, rather than a flat warmonger penalty per city taken.

Further, the AI's neighbours envy will transfer to you. This is realistic. If an AI already wants certain lands and it switched owners, it should naturally transfer to the new owner.

RE: previous post I also failed to mention there's a 'reckless expansion' penalty. If you gain a bunch of cities through a peace treaty or simply took a bunch of cities, some AI will penalize you for 'reckless expansion'. Again another indirect penalty to warmongering that isn't necessarily tied to a per city penalty.

Sorry but that seams a hole lot of penalties for a player doesn't seem fun at all.

I can agree about the one warmonger penalty for dowing but multiple penalties no

Its eather penalty for dowing or taking cities.

 

[Optional]

Also, one of the articles did say the AI will no longer hold grudges for the entire game.

That would be good. I missed that bit.

I know what we as players want; we don't want penalties that last the entire game. And ideally, we want penalties that take into consideration the circumstances. If we are replying to a request for help from a City State, that's different from us attacking just because we want to expand our territory.
We know the developers are listening to us, hopefully they'll get the chance to work on the code enough to make it reflect this.

I can agree about the one warmonger penalty for dowing but multiple penalties no

Its eather penalty for dowing or taking cities.

I don't mind multiple penalties, and they may be hefty, even heftier than they are now. You can get one for settling cities too quickly for the taste of the AI and you can get one for warmongering. Both are okay for me, but the one for expanding too quickly is only temporary at the moment, the warmonger penalty lasts forever. That's not historical, and if the player can't do anything to repair his tarnished reputation it's a game element lost.

 

[nokmirt]

I have to say this is one of my main annoyances that AI hold grudges all game long and how broken the Warmonger penalty is. 1 War and you are fine, 2 and you are Hitler.

This system from vanilla is going to change.

Also for me my biggest thing I'm excited about is the new diplo changes, AI is more forgiving over past wars and mishaps, there's the early game religious alliances and "holy wars", and late game ideologies and grand alliances. Which espionage compliments well by the way..

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/08/civilization-5-gods-and-kings-devs-discuss-community-driven-cha/ Here is the article that says the AI does not hold grudges for the entire game. I wonder if this is based on a number of turns? Or how this will actually work?

 

[Deggial]

I wonder if this is based on a number of turns? Or how this will actually work?

Probably by numbers of turns, yes. Just as the positive modifier of "we have recently traded" diminishs over time.
But I hope (and I am pretty sure) it will last longer than the standard 30 turns of trade agreements. Without having thought through it, I feel that at least 90 turns might be a reasonable turn count until the negative modifier for a DOW disappeared.

 

[nokmirt]

Probably by numbers of turns, yes. Just as the positive modifier of "we have recently traded" diminishs over time.
But I hope (and I am pretty sure) it will last longer than the standard 30 turns of trade agreements. Without having thought through it, I feel that at least 90 turns might be a reasonable turn count until the negative modifier for a DOW disappeared.

I say up to 90 turns should be plenty. There should be other diplomacy factors governing declaring war. If someone asks you to declare war against an enemy of theirs, you should get a diplo penalty with them and their friends. So should the civ that has asked you to declare war. Also, you should get worse penalty if they have a DoF with those civs. Even harsher diplo penalties, if that civ is in a defensive pact, or ally with the civ you are DoWing against.

In other words instead of making this worldwide warmonger penalty that lasts forever. Let the penalties be situational. This way a group of civs will be upset at another group and vice versa, until things smooth over, if things smooth over. The harsher the penalty the longer it lasts. But none should last for more than 90 turns. I think like you suggested, that is a good number for the harshest penalties.

As for conquering CSs. If you take on a quest to destroy a City State another CS is in a dispute with, you should only get a warmonger penalty from a civ who is allied with that CS you are quested to destroy. Or any civ that has pledged to protect that CS. And a smaller penalty from that allied civs friends, DoFs, Allies, and defense pact partners.

Maybe one of my examples could shed some light on my idea.

I am Arabia. Florence asks me to destroy Bucharest. I decide to do this, but looking at Bucharest I notice that they are allied with Rome. So when I attack I end up at war with Rome.

Attacking CS that has an ally or a pledge to protect agreement= 90 turn warmonger penalty against DoW civ.

Civs with alliance/defense pact with ally/pledge to protect of CS= 90 turn warmonger penalty against DoW civ.

Civs with signed DoF with that allied/pledge to protect civ= 80 turn warmonger penalty against DoW civ.

Civs friendly with allied/pledge to protect civ= 50 turn warmonger penalty aganst DoW civ.

I was thinking that civs that have a pledge to protect treaty with the CS being attacked could give a slightly less warmonger penalty to the agressor civ. Perhaps 80 or 60 turns. The ally of the CS should be more important in this regard.

Any civ guarded or neutral to the allied civ has no effect and gives no warmonger penalty to the aggressor. If any civ named has any similar contract with agressing civ. Those civs do not give the civ declaring war a warmonger penalty. So if the Allied civ and the civ who declares war are have both signed a DoF with England. The civ declaring war gets no warmonger penalty from England. Of course England could turn around and side with either civ allied with the CS or the agressor civ, and denounce, or declare war.

Attacking CS protected by a civ or civs pledged to protect it= 60-80 turn warmonger penalty. and so on.

The same could be applied to a civ declaring war on another civ. I call this a situational diplomacy system. I think it could work quite well.

 

[storical]

I say up to 90 turns should be plenty.

I love the idea. Dude those turns times are way too long. Maybe 50 turns should be the max out for big warmonger penalties. As the game progresses them turns get longer and longer.

 

[Optional]

What Firaxis has always done with these penalties is that they slowly recede.
You still see that now, in for example CS's you've been at war with. Declare war; Bang!, the whole diplo bar is red, sign peace; every turn 1 point of red goes away.

It would very much surprise me if we won't see a slowly receding warmonger penalty from Gods & Kings onwards.
It was actually a surprise that it wasn't in the game from the start, I have no idea what has to be held into account for that.