How much warmonger penalties must be immediately toned down ?

[Jabulani]

As per title, please cast your vote, thx

 

[Ozisl]

The point I would have is that the AI needs to experience warmongering penalties as well, instead of just randomly surprise attacking then making amends every 3 turns.

 

[kaltorak]

I don't think it just needs a number nerf, I think it needs to be rebalanced. If you are the target of a war, make capturing cities warmonger almost zero. If you attack a hated AI, make the others like you, not hate you too.

 

[Jabulani]

Yep, I usually see each AI leader being hated by everyone and that's usually true for all the competitors.

This way it doesn't make sense at all.

In addition, you are right too in your sentence.

In addition warmonger penalties are insane now

All these factors imo need a urgent fix, that's almost a game stopper for me

 

[Jabulani]

I don't think it just needs a number nerf, I think it needs to be rebalanced. If you are the target of a war, make capturing cities warmonger almost zero. If you attack a hated AI, make the others like you, not hate you too.

Agreed

 

[skyclad]

I disagree that you should be able to take cities without penalty if you are the target of a Dow? How does it make sense? Its just an ezploit, get the AI to dow and then take his cities for free... No thanks.
Cut it 50% across the board or get rid of it completely. Do like in civ4 where only friends of the target got mad. and yes they also need to add some "enemy of my enemy" mechanics.

 

[HF22]

I don't think the penalties need reducing - Its an interesting design decision to have war lessen over time (or at least the implications become worse).

What I think is needed is for AIs to ignore them a bit more if it matches their agenda, and for their to be more modifiers to offset them, like enemy of my enemy etc. I mean the joint war thing, where you get a net negative penalty with your war partner even if they ask you to join, is just crazy. However I think this is on the cards, because I am sure someone here pointed out there are [for future use] diplo modifiers in the code which modders can see.

A future world congress expansion might be a good place to expect significant improvement to late game warmonger options (at least providing extra CB to allow all the hate for warmongers to translate into some AI DOWs).

 

[Sascha77]

I voted for 25% - at least on lower/medium difficulties.

I'm currently on a warmongering game as Rome (Epic, King, standard-sized Continents) and just got out of a lengthy war against Congo. His capital was a biatch to assault, with mountain ranges, rough terrain and an encampment. Plus he had a Carpet of Doom of his UU, who are nearly invincible to ranged attacks.

I had to wither down his army first and while I did that, Bombards came online and helped me speed up the process. Still: I was in this war for at least 15 turns, took three Congolese cities in the process and now my warmonger penalties are pretty bad. Aachen (my first conquest) is still on -5 and this slows me down considerably. Monty is the only other guy left on my continent and I would've loved to kick him off the planet before I started meeting the other leaders (who are all on other continents). Alas, with my war-weariness being what it was, I had to stop my army more or less at Monty's doorstep to let things cool down a bit.

I *think* I'll have to postpone the next war and my caravel-expeditions not only until the weariness goes away but also until my Colosseum comes online (9 turns or so from now).

S.

 

[Victoria]

Bang on Skyclad and also hinting that if you want to steamroller across the board and declare without consideration for how and use the politics your wars will take longer and be more costly. They have touted politics are more important and I very much agree. Just some tweaks required.

I disagree that you should be able to take cities without penalty if you are the target of a Dow? How does it make sense? Its just an ezploit, get the AI to dow and then take his cities for free... No thanks.
Cut it 50% across the board or get rid of it completely. Do like in civ4 where only friends of the target got mad. and yes they also need to add some "enemy of my enemy" mechanics.

 

[Maniac]

When does war weariness actually become problematic? I've had -25 amenities in my recent war, all cities unhappy, but I didn't get any partisans or other bad stuff.

 

[JosephC]

I disagree that you should be able to take cities without penalty if you are the target of a Dow? How does it make sense? Its just an ezploit, get the AI to dow and then take his cities for free... No thanks.

I'd have to think about it a bit more, but my initial thoughts are along these lines. I mean; If someone takes a swing at you, you have every right to defend yourself and your property. It doesn't give you the right to hit their family and burn/take their house.

 

[Jabulani]

I hope a mod will surface because Civ without war it is like the Big Ben without the clock.

 

[Cymsdale]

I don't think warmonger penalties are too strong, I think positive modifiers are too weak.

Size of cities taken should be a factor though.

 

[esoba]

Less penalties, more benefits. And absolutely, positively make relationships matter. Joining the war on a friends behalf, leading that friend to call you a warmonger, is freaking ridiculous.

 

[TruthfulCake]

Warmonger penalties can reach minus hundreds - there is probably not a single positive modifier they can give that can balance that out.

Although, I don't see the Allied Powers hating the US for their repeated use of atomic bombs on Japan. Clearly alliance and common cause should be a more powerful positive modifier than the use of nuclear weapons is a negative one.

 

[esoba]

Absolutely. In this game Japan would have been denounced for Pearl Harbor by Germany, and Germany denounced by Italy for their movements. Alliances and friendships and relationships need to matter more.

 

[Jabulani]

I am reading excellent suggestions, thx guys. Hope devs will take note of customers' needings.

BTW, in the real life I am a pacifist, in Civ I am a proud warmomnger, yes.

 

[TruthfulCake]

Yeah, right now the diplomacy system prevents a huge scale war like WW2 from unfolding between two blocs simply because it feels too much like a free-for-all. I experimented with warmongering last game and made 2 allies by exploiting all those positive modifiers. Ten turns into the war both allies hated my guts.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

They should be
-slightly weaker for the actual DOW
-slightly stronger for the cities (and you should get an actual slight net bonus when liberating, as opposed to just neutralizing the taking penalty)
....most important...
-CB should be stronger and more reliable/easier to trigger

 

[GhostSalsa]

How does it make sense? Its just an ezploit, get the AI to dow and then take his cities for free... No thanks.

It's not "for free." You put down a warmongerer, if warmongering or expansion by conquest are truly "bad" according to the game logic (both in historical analogy and in slowing domination wins), then the only difference between "A conquered all of B so a coalition got together and took A down a peg" and "A came at B and got smacked" is efficiency.

And it's less an exploit than letting an AI become the bad guy by conquering others and then taking everything they took; aka BNW aka the high city penalty system. It was a balanced system, but very low-risk, low-drama and I for one don't need a new game with the same mechanic.

What the game needs is not what V vanilla had, and not what G&K and BNW had, but something new. For now to make the game playable they should just seriously reduce penalties and bring science inflation back. CB was a really half hearted attempt with no implementation.