[GS] Grievances... I get how they work, but why do I care?

[Dearmad]

I just don't get them in play. So I get sneak attacked and have 150 versus Korea... the war ends... the grievances go away? So... why did I care?

Was it because I could invite others to the war more easily than she could? Was it because now others scowl at her and smile at me? No one did anything... I kicked her ass.

-shrug-

 

[CyberChrist]

I don't think Grievances are working entirely as intended atm. I had a game starting very close to Korea (5 tiles between our capitols), Korea unsuprisingly pulled a surprise war on me in the ancient era. Like you I also gained 150 positive grievances with Korea from that and I assume the 2 other civs that Korea had met also gained 150 grievances with Korea, since they almost instantly denounced Korea. I myself had contact with 6 civs in total and Korea didn't gain contact with the 4 others at any time, but when I won the war by taking Koreas only city (the Capitol) I instantly gained 150 negative grievances with ALL the civs I had contact with - including the ones that never heard of Korea before - and they all denounced me during the following 2 turns (they were all friendly with zero negative grievances before this).

So seemingly the 150 positive grievances I had with Korea didn't count for anything when they were destroyed. This makes waging war in the ancient era close to impossible unless the plan is to be at war with everyone for the rest of the game. It is certainly a massive change from how it worked before GS (where you could wage war in the ancient era without the AI caring at all).

 

[Archon_Wing]

It's more of an extension of the casus belli system. You have more leeway to take their cities while others turn a blind eye.... but don't go too far.

 

[CyberChrist]

It's more of an extension of the casus belli system. You have more leeway to take their cities while others turn a blind eye.... but don't go too far.

Clearly you don't. I never had anyone - let alone everyone - denounce me after taking a Capitol in the ancient era before.

 

[MooFreaky]

Would you not also get a penalty for destroying a Civ? So perhaps you spent 150 for capturing their Capitol, but there was also a cost of a further 150 for destroying them completely?

 

[CyberChrist]

Maybe, but even if we assume that is the case then why would civs that never even met the destroyed civ care so much? For all they know it could just have been a massive barbarian camp! After all in the ancient era it was even more true than in later eras that it is the victor that writes the history 'book'. And why would civs that already denounced the destroyed civ suddenly have such a big problem with them being destroyed that they would switch from friendship with the one that rid them of their despised neighbour to denoucing their current friend - almost begging the clearly stronger victor to declare war on them? No, IMO then it is too big a difference from how it used to work and it kind of breaks immersion.

On a more technical note then I am also having trouble locating the appropriate files to tweak how this works to mod it to work more to my liking. Very few numerical entries concerning Grievance and none that I can see that directly gives any values (direct ones or modifiers) for the various perceived offences. Looking at the old Warmonger entries then it would seem these values might be the ones now used for Grievance, but the modifier for the ancient era is still set to 0 - which is why I think that my experience might not be how it is supposed to be working (in the ancient era). Of course, it is entirely possible that I just haven't found the right file yet.

 

[Cakeathon]

I have written an entire guide on the subject here:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/grievances-guide.642164/

Was it because I could invite others to the war more easily than she could? Was it because now others scowl at her and smile at me? No one did anything... I kicked her ass.
-shrug-

grievances translate directly into relationship modifiers with other civs, it also plays a role in loyalty for conquered cities, but that part isn't fully figured out yet. That's all it does. It's just the latest iteration of the warmonger relationship penalty.

Also, they don't "go away" immediately at the end of the war, they decay over time instead. 150 will be gone in 15 turns in ancient era but 50 turns in information era.

So seemingly the 150 positive grievances I had with Korea didn't count for anything when they were destroyed. This makes waging war in the ancient era close to impossible unless the plan is to be at war with everyone for the rest of the game. It is certainly a massive change from how it worked before GS (where you could wage war in the ancient era without the AI caring at all).

Yes, they got rid of the concept of wars not being as bad in ancient. However, people forget your warmongering faster in ancient, 150 grievances will be gone in 15 turns in ancient.

Wiping out a civ is a huge crime that results in grievances to all civs in the game that know you.

Taking cities without wiping civs causes grievances exclusively with the target, this is the intended way to "cash in" your grievances.

Also, check out my "summary for warmongers" at the end of my guide(link at the top of my post) for some ways to mitigate the penalty.

On a more technical note then I am also having trouble locating the appropriate files to tweak how this works to mod it to work more to my liking. Very few numerical entries concerning Grievance and none that I can see that directly gives any values (direct ones or modifiers) for the various perceived offences. Looking at the old Warmonger entries then it would seem these values might be the ones now used for Grievance, but the modifier for the ancient era is still set to 0 - which is why I think that my experience might not be how it is supposed to be working (in the ancient era). Of course, it is entirely possible that I just haven't found the right file yet.

The formula for the grievance value of cities isn't in there so... though luck. But search "WARMONGER" in globalparameter.xml for a bunch of multipliers including wiping out a civ. expansion2_DiplimaticActions.xml has the promises expansion2_Eras.xml has the decay rate.

All the old casus belli modifiers still apply too(they shouldn't be hard to find).

 

[CyberChrist]

However, people forget your warmongering faster in ancient, 150 grievances will be gone in 15 turns in ancient.

Indeed, but the denounciations continue long after the grievances have faded.

Wiping out a civ is a huge crime that results in grievances to all civs in the game that know you.

Which is fair, but is it really reasonable that civs that haven't even met the civ that got wiped out also get upset?

Taking cities without wiping civs causes grievances exclusively with the target, this is the intended way to "cash in" your grievances.

If the aggressor only have the 1 city then I think the system is punishing the defender too harshly for taking that city - especially if it happens in the ancient era. Maybe the old 'free of charge' was too lenient, but a compromise between the 2 methods would seem to be in order (perhaps make Denounce require a civic ... I might actually do just that as a band aid to mitigate the insanity of the current system).

The formula for the grievance value of cities isn't in there so... though luck. But search "WARMONGER" in globalparameter.xml for a bunch of multipliers including wiping out a civ. expansion2_DiplimaticActions.xml has the promises expansion2_DiplimaticActions.xml has the decay rate.

All the old casus belli modifiers still apply too(they shouldn't be hard to find).

Yeah, I know all this already, but I was hoping I had overlooked something. And as I mentioned then the multiplier for Warmongering in Ancient era is STILL set to zero (which used to mean free of charge) - so it is possible that none of the era modifiers are applied at all (or at least applied differently than before - like with the modifier for embarked movement speed now being added to BaseMove of units rather than replacing it).

Nice guide btw.

 

[Dearmad]

Thank you Cakeathon!

 

[Cakeathon]

Indeed, but the denounciations continue long after the grievances have faded.


Which is fair, but is it really reasonable that civs that haven't even met the civ that got wiped out also get upset?


If the aggressor only have the 1 city then I think the system is punishing the defender too harshly for taking that city - especially if it happens in the ancient era. Maybe the old 'free of charge' was too lenient, but a compromise between the 2 methods would seem to be in order (perhaps make Denounce require a civic ... I might actually do just that as a band aid to mitigate the insanity of the current system).


Yeah, I know all this already, but I was hoping I had overlooked something. And as I mentioned then the multiplier for Warmongering in Ancient era is STILL set to zero (which used to mean free of charge) - so it is possible that none of the era modifiers are applied at all (or at least applied differently than before - like with the modifier for embarked movement speed now being added to BaseMove of units rather than replacing it).

Nice guide btw.

I don't design the game, I'm just telling you how it works.

Only what I mentioned still applies and globalparameters.xml only partially. Warmonger point values from era.xml don't apply, which is why I didn't mention it at all.

 

[CyberChrist]

.. Multipliers from era.xml don't apply ...

Yeah, that is what I am thinking/hoping that the high grievance cost in ancient war might be an unintentional side effect of. They did say that capturing cities was supposed to punish defenders less in GS. In the case I supplied the opposite is clearly the case.

 

[Cakeathon]

Yeah, that is what I am thinking/hoping that the high grievance cost in ancient war might be an unintentional side effect of. They did say that capturing cities was supposed to punish defenders less in GS. In the case I supplied the opposite is clearly the case.

It's clearly not designed with 1 city civs in mind. If they have a few cities, 1 DoW can earn you 2-3 cities depending on their size with little to no penalty but that's about it.

 

[CyberChrist]

It's clearly not designed with 1 city civs in mind. If they have a few cities, 1 DoW can earn you 2-3 cities depending on their size with little to no penalty but that's about it.

So it would seem. I'll add it to the growing pile of hardcoded design flaws for now.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Clearly you don't. I never had anyone - let alone everyone - denounce me after taking a Capitol in the ancient era before.

It's always been like this. Earlier wars have much less penalities.

 

[CyberChrist]

It's always been like this. Earlier wars have much less penalities.

No, I have had many games before GS where I defeated several AIs in the ancient era and not once did I ever receive a single denounciation as a result - until now with GS where every civ I had met suddenly ALL went from friendly stance to denouncing at the same time.


EDIT: added parts in italics. I was very sleepy when I posted this comment this last night.

 

[Iberian]

Early on I will normally just defend and take peace as soon as possible to continue building my empire. From there it is pretty much just waiting till the AI attacks again and then I am on the warpath till the end because it just doesn't pay to stop. The whole world already hates you from the first Civilization you conquered.

It is hard to conquer your whole continent before you start meeting others. Maybe as Gilgamesh?

 

[Candido Rondon]

I think the Grievance system is a fantastic idea that is currently completely bonkers as implemented. I played a game as the Maori the other day where everybody was gobbling up city-states with basically no consequences. I decided to take one city-state for myself that had no suzerain. The next turn every civilization on the planet denounced me including ones I had been friendly with, the turn after that an emergency was declared and FIVE civilizations declared war on me... because I took a single city-state when everybody else had already taken at least one.

I think the Grievance system has the potential to be an incredible mechanic, but currently the AI is way, WAY too sensitive to the accumulation of any grievances at all.

 

[Archon_Wing]

No, I have had many games before GS where I defeated several AIs in the ancient era and not once did I ever receive a single denounciation as a result - until now with GS where every civ I had met suddenly ALL went from friendly stance to denouncing at the same time.

Oh, being denounced in the ancient era? Yea that never happened.

But I dunno. I took Poland's capital in the industrial era while under a defensive pact and nobody cared. That would have been a lot of warmongering before GS. I think it's much easier to get around it now and diplomacy is much easier. It's not like I care about being denounced in ancient anyways.

 

[Dearmad]

I think the Grievance system is a fantastic idea that is currently completely bonkers as implemented. I played a game as the Maori the other day where everybody was gobbling up city-states with basically no consequences. I decided to take one city-state for myself that had no suzerain. The next turn every civilization on the planet denounced me including ones I had been friendly with, the turn after that an emergency was declared and FIVE civilizations declared war on me... because I took a single city-state when everybody else had already taken at least one.

I think the Grievance system has the potential to be an incredible mechanic, but currently the AI is way, WAY too sensitive to the accumulation of any grievances at all.

Maybe they took CIty States as part of war with their allied Major power? IDk... I took one in a purely aggressive war because I got sick of them being manipulated by other Civs... and everyone got pissed IF they had envoys there... Those who didn't didn't care too much. It shifted my alliances a bit but nbd.

I think they SHOULD get pissed like they did at you if they just lost a bunch of envoys they invested. Seems fair.

 

[Rambo919]

The AI being "Grieved because you grieved other players" in itself is already ludicrous. All it does is cause snowballing "grieving".