How do nations define other people as "warmongering?"

[Circlet the Zen]

In my current game as Bismarck, Dido and I had a war. She declared war on me and tried for one of my cities, but my Landsknechts crushed her forest elephants and she was quick to surrender once I moved my troops towards her capital. She apparently didn't hold a grudge and we made a DoF, did some trading, and then she asked me to declare war against Sweden. I agree and together we conquer Sweden's capital (which I take) and she takes two other Swedish cities.

Approximately 1,500 years later, she denounces me and changes from "Friendly" to "Hostile" for one reason: "Believes you are a warmongering menace to the world!"

Listen batch, I only made a DoW against one person and we did it together. Meanwhile you had been at war with Sweden three different times and one time with me. Where does the AI draw this up?

 

[The Saharan Spy]

Fart
Just kidding, but did u wiped out the Swedish? By taking the capital. Here is how it works, Dido might have took the 2 cities first and u come yodeling to town taking Stockholm and wiping the Swedish king from the face of the sarth

 

[Putmalk]

Every time you declare war another player, the game'll add 5*warmongerhate to your warmonger score, if they're not actually at war with this civ as well. When you declare war on another civ, Dido'll add 20 to your warmonger score (for her). You can consult the AI bias chart to see each civ's warmonger bias

Warmonger thresholds:
warmonger_score >= 200: Critical
warmonger_score >= 150: Severe
warmonger_score >= 100: Major
warmonger_score >= 50: Minor

Alternatively, if you've killed off a bunch of civs, there is a chance you'll also hit critical and severe by doing that, as well.

For determining whether or not the AI sees you as a warmonger, take your warmonger score and divide it by 2. That will be the number that modifies their opinion of you.

If your score is less than 10, it has no effect on their opinion of you at all.

That's about as much as I can offer on this subject, unfortunately. There may be another factor I may have missed, as the code can get a little webbed after a while.

 

[The Saharan Spy]

Every time you declare war another player, the game'll add 5*warmongerhate to your warmonger score, if they're not actually at war with this civ as well. When you declare war on another civ, Dido'll add 20 to your warmonger score (for her). You can consult the AI bias chart to see each civ's warmonger bias

Warmonger thresholds:
warmonger_score >= 200: Critical
warmonger_score >= 150: Severe
warmonger_score >= 100: Major
warmonger_score >= 50: Minor

For determining whether or not the AI sees you as a warmonger, take your warmonger score and divide it by 2. That will be the number that modifies their opinion of you.

If your score is less than 10, it has no effect on their opinion of you at all.

That's about as much as I can offer on this subject, unfortunately. There may be another factor I may have missed, as the code can get a little webbed after a while.

Geez, thanks

 

[apocalypse105]

Funny how hypocrite this AI is they want to work together to destroy a common enemy and they are mad ad you for whiping them out

or calling you a warmonger . While they declared war thousand of times

 

[joncnunn]

Alternatively, if you've killed off a bunch of civs

Killing off a bunch of civs for purpose of war mongling label: Is defined as "1" for quite a few civs.

If you don't want to be labeled as a war mongler, let your opponent keep a junk city.

Another alternative is before the game start to go into advanced settings and turn "require complete kills" on. In this case, leave the opponent a unit (outside a city).

 

[stii]

I guess this sort of explains why the AI really hate you if you attack city states because they count it is wiping them out?

 

[joncnunn]

I guess this sort of explains why the AI really hate you if you attack city states because they count it is wiping them out?

Indeed, and it makes the Mongolian UA useless.

 

[WChrisMullen]

I had a game where I declared war a total of one time in the game. Japan declared war twice, Spain once, and France once. I declared war on Japan one last time in conjunction with France and let France wipe him out by taking the last city. Yet somehow I'm a warmonger.

 

[Putmalk]

Indeed, and it makes the Mongolian UA useless.

And the Mongols should care about diplomacy?

 

[joncnunn]

And the Mongols should care about diplomacy?

When played by the human at a high enough level, yes.

 

[apocalypse105]

I had a game where I declared war a total of one time in the game. Japan declared war twice, Spain once, and France once. I declared war on Japan one last time in conjunction with France and let France wipe him out by taking the last city. Yet somehow I'm a warmonger.

To be honest the modifier is way to sensetive in my opinion

 

[tomtom5858]

blah blah blah stuff from .cpp files

Do you happen to know how it declines? I've been thinking a bit, and guessed that is woud decline by (10/WarmongerHate)/turn, but was looking for a more specific answer.

 

[Putmalk]

Do you happen to know how it declines? I've been thinking a bit, and guessed that is woud decline by (10/WarmongerHate)/turn, but was looking for a more specific answer.

It's base -.05 per turn. (or 100 turns to remove the warmonger penalty for conquering a minor, 200 turns to remove the warmonger penalty for conquering a major).

Would like to point that you'd have to conquer two minors in order to be equal (in terms of warmonger status) with one major.

Now, the more warmonger hate the AI has, the slower it will decay.

Some maths to make it more clear, hopefully:

For the purposes of this, I'm a human, and there are two other AIs.
AI #1: WarmongerHate of 7
AI #2: WarmongerHate of 3

I killed one major civ.

Warmonger amount = 10.
Actual warmonger score for AI #1 = 10 * hate = 10 * 7 = 70.
Actual warmonger score for AI #2 = 10 * hate = 10 * 3 = 30.

Turn #1:
Warmonger amount = 9.95
Actual warmonger score for AI #1 = 9.95 * 7 = 69.65 => 69 (after truncation)
Actual warmonger score for AI #2 = 9.95 * 3 = 29.85 => 29 (after truncation)

Turn #2:
Warmonger amount = 9.9 
Score for AI #1: 69.3 => 69 (no net change)
Score for AI #2: => 29.7 => 29 (not net change)

Turn #5:
Warmonger amount = 9.75
Score for AI #1: 68.25 => 68
Score for AI #2: 29.25 => 29 (still no change)

Turn #100:
Warmonger amount = 5
Score for AI #1: 35
Score for AI #2: 15 

Turn #200:
Warmonger amount = 0
Score for AI #1: 0
Score for AI #2: 0

It takes 200 turns for the AI to completely forget you conquerored another civ. This doesn't seem affected at all by game speed, so you'll notice less warmongering penalties on Marathon.

I'm going to take this moment to remind you:

Finally:
Score >= 200 = Critical
Score >= 150 = Severe
Score >= 100 = Major
Score >= 50 = Minor

If I kill off two major civs on the same turn, all AIs with WarmongerHate > 5 will think I'm a Major threat (warmongerhate equal and over 8's will think you're a Severe Warmonger, this is Ramkhamhaeng and Haile Selaisse) while warmonger equal and under 2's (Alexander, Montezuma) won't think you're a warmonger at all.

Probably will make a reddit post about this too, since I think more people would be interested.

Conquering a Major Civ: +10
Conquering a City-State: +5
Attacking a Major Civ: +5
Attacking a Minor Civ: +5

There's also another calculation, if you play very small maps, the game calculates your threat based on the % of players killed...

 

[tomtom5858]

Now, the more warmonger hate the AI has, the slower it will decay.

Not entirely sure what you mean by this, because here, it says that it declines more quickly:

Turn #1:
Warmonger amount = 9.95
Actual warmonger score for AI #1 = 9.95 * 7 = 69.65 => 69 (after truncation)
Actual warmonger score for AI #2 = 9.95 * 3 = 29.85 => 29 (after truncation)

I'm assuming you meant that it starts out higher, and will always be a higher value, despite declining more quickly? Because 0.05 * 7 > 0.05 * 3. Sorry for being dumb, just trying to get this a little more clear

 

[Putmalk]

Not entirely sure what you mean by this, because here, it says that it declines more quickly:


I'm assuming you meant that it starts out higher, and will always be a higher value, despite declining more quickly? Because 0.05 * 7 > 0.05 * 3. Sorry for being dumb, just trying to get this a little more clear

Hm. You're right. It'll "decay" faster, but the number will always be higher than the lower warmonger hate value. So in the end, the net result is the AI will hate you more, regardless of how fast it decays.

Sorry for being unclear.

 

[Cajamarca]

I think a few potential fixes are in order. Capturing a city state shouldn't count as a complete eradication; instead the warmonger level depends on how many city states have declared permanent war on you.

If a civ considers the civ you attacked an enemy (i.e. DoF it would give you a diplo hit) the warmonger score increase should be reduced by 75%.

DoWs caused by Defensive Pacts do not increase your warmonger score.

There should be a sliding scale formula so that the greater a civilization outclasses you in military might, the less your warmonger score with them increases when you DoW a third party (offset, of course, if you greatly outclass the party you DoW on). The system should recognize hypocrisy.

The more evenly matched your armies are with the defending civ, the less your warmonger score with 3rd parties increases. If you are at or near the top of the military might list, this mitigating factor becomes far weaker.

Defensive Pacts with DoFs give large diplomatic bonuses if your military is roughly equal to or greater than the other party, encouraging the use of Defensive Pacts.

If you want to tinker with the dynamics of gameplay a little, consider having weaker civs you've given a DoF ask for a Defensive Pact instead of begging for gold or Luxury resources.

There should be a list of mitigating factors for increases in your warmonger score (applies for AI-on-AI relations as well; also, you receive 15% of the reduction mitigation if a condition applies between the civ you are DoW'ing and a civ you have made a DoF with. This mitigation is additive if the civ has pissed off multiple DoF allies.):
*The first war between you and the other civ was declared by the other civ.
*Other civ has stolen land with a Great General (increases each time).
*Other civ has spied on you after you asked them not to (increases each time).
*Other civ has converted your cities after you asked them not to (increases each time).
*Other civ has borders that are flush with yours (increases with every hex that touches one of yours).
*Other civ, after asking them not to settle near you, settles close enough to you that it would trigger a "stop settling" message were it an AI.
*Other civ has enough units near your borders that the Foreign Advisor would say "that's strange..." or trigger a request to move if it were your units near an AI.
*Other civ has denounced you (the mitigation offered by this would depend on the warmongerhate of each particular Civ; Napoleon and Alexander would give you a relatively free pass for attacking someone who has Denounced you, but Gandhi would be less than impressed).
*If another civ has uncovered and shared intrigue suggesting that a Civ is plotting against you, attacking the Civ that is plotting against you should result in far less of an increase in your warmonger score with the Civ that shared their intrigue with you; after all, what the hell did they expect you to do with the information? The warmonger increase with 3rd parties should also be slightly lessened.
*Other civ pulls off a coup in a city-state ally. The amount of mitigation should be dependent on the spy's base chance of success if it were a Recruit; a success on a 15% chance would shock most world powers, who would well understand that the new regime is illegitimate, while a 85% coup is basically just reading the writing that was already on the wall.

 

[tomtom5858]

1. The first war between you and the other civ was declared by the other civ.
2. Other civ has stolen land with a Great General (increases each time).
3. Other civ has spied on you after you asked them not to (increases each time).
4. Other civ has converted your cities after you asked them not to (increases each time).
5. Other civ has borders that are flush with yours (increases with every hex that touches one of yours).
6. Other civ, after asking them not to settle near you, settles close enough to you that it would trigger a "stop settling" message were it an AI.
7. Other civ has enough units near your borders that the Foreign Advisor would say "that's strange..." or trigger a request to move if it were your units near an AI.
8. Other civ has denounced you (the mitigation offered by this would depend on the warmongerhate of each particular Civ; Napoleon and Alexander would give you a relatively free pass for attacking someone who has Denounced you, but Gandhi would be less than impressed).
9. If another civ has uncovered and shared intrigue suggesting that a Civ is plotting against you, attacking the Civ that is plotting against you should result in far less of an increase in your warmonger score with the Civ that shared their intrigue with you; after all, what the hell did they expect you to do with the information? The warmonger increase with 3rd parties should also be slightly lessened.
10. Other civ pulls off a coup in a city-state ally. The amount of mitigation should be dependent on the spy's base chance of success if it were a Recruit; a success on a 15% chance would shock most world powers, who would well understand that the new regime is illegitimate, while a 85% coup is basically just reading the writing that was already on the wall.

1. I'd say the next most recent one, not the first.
2-4. Please, yes, I'm not a warmonger if I declare war after he said that he wouldn't spy on me any more and he did, three times. Same with not converting my cities.
5. Sure, that's a really nice one, and rather realistic.
6. So, within 60 tiles of me?
7. Or just give me an option to force them to either say they're passing through or to DoW me; why do they get that, but not me? Perhaps a minor diplo hit if they're only passing through (around 5, I'd say), because I get a little cheesed off, too, when someone I've been allied with for 200 turns asks me that. Yeah, I'm going to DoW you when we're on equal footing, as opposed to when I had ten times the soldiers you did.
8. Sounds good.
9. Exactly.
10. Yes.

 

[Darth Revan]

In my current game as Bismarck, Dido and I had a war. She declared war on me and tried for one of my cities, but my Landsknechts crushed her forest elephants and she was quick to surrender once I moved my troops towards her capital. She apparently didn't hold a grudge and we made a DoF, did some trading, and then she asked me to declare war against Sweden. I agree and together we conquer Sweden's capital (which I take) and she takes two other Swedish cities.

Approximately 1,500 years later, she denounces me and changes from "Friendly" to "Hostile" for one reason: "Believes you are a warmongering menace to the world!"

Listen batch, I only made a DoW against one person and we did it together. Meanwhile you had been at war with Sweden three different times and one time with me. Where does the AI draw this up?

If the world considers you a warmonger doesn't matter. Don't forget your primary goal.... WIN the game.