Pretty much every BNW Let's Play I've watched involves the player bribing another AI to attack the player's victim before the player declares war, partially to gain a military advantage but mainly to reduce the warmonger penalty.
Apparently, if you declare war on another civ, the warmonger penalty for the DoW is divided amongst the aggressors, so the more aggressors, the less of a penalty each gets.
To me this makes no sense, "ganging up" on a victim should not reduce the warmonger penalty at all, you could even argue it should increase it!
The simplest, fair way of reducing the penalty in multi-party conflicts would be to apply a reduced warmonger score for DoWing a CiV that is in an active war with another civ and was the aggressor in that conflict.
If you're feeling brave, you could add more sophistication by devising a
weighting system, whereby the higher the warmonger score of your "victim", the less of a warmonger penalty you get for attacking them. Further a military score could be taken into account - declaring war on a much weaker opponent should give an enhanced warmonger penalty. That'd take a lot more playtesting and fine tuning, and could lead to unintended consequences. Nevertheless, it would rather accurately model the way in times past, when when everyone was fighting everyone else on a regular basis, declarations of war raised less consternation than in more peaceful times. It would also model the chain of DoWs that lead to WWI, which, since they were almost all in response to attacks on nation's allies, did not leave the participants with massive warmonger perceptions in years to come. Finally, it would also simulate better the way a rampant expansionist like Hitler could be DoWed an wiped out without each and every one of the Allied nations being seen as massive warmongers (at least, not to the extent that would occur in-game).
As regards the act of bribing one nation to attack another -
The game as it stands makes this a way of keeping warmongers off your back,a way of weakening an opponent, as well as the aforementioned reduction in the penalty for starting a war as a co-belligerant - and other than the cost of the bribe, it's consequence-free.
Again, this goes against every commonsense notion of justice. Should the truth come out, bribing a nation to attack another SHOULD carry almost as much warmonger penalty as attacking that nation yourself AS WELL AS a large penalty for dishonourable behaviour in the same way that breaking a promise does. There should be a chance of the act remaining secret of course, but it should represent some sort of gamble.
Apparently, if you declare war on another civ, the warmonger penalty for the DoW is divided amongst the aggressors, so the more aggressors, the less of a penalty each gets.
To me this makes no sense, "ganging up" on a victim should not reduce the warmonger penalty at all, you could even argue it should increase it!
The simplest, fair way of reducing the penalty in multi-party conflicts would be to apply a reduced warmonger score for DoWing a CiV that is in an active war with another civ and was the aggressor in that conflict.
If you're feeling brave, you could add more sophistication by devising a
weighting system, whereby the higher the warmonger score of your "victim", the less of a warmonger penalty you get for attacking them. Further a military score could be taken into account - declaring war on a much weaker opponent should give an enhanced warmonger penalty. That'd take a lot more playtesting and fine tuning, and could lead to unintended consequences. Nevertheless, it would rather accurately model the way in times past, when when everyone was fighting everyone else on a regular basis, declarations of war raised less consternation than in more peaceful times. It would also model the chain of DoWs that lead to WWI, which, since they were almost all in response to attacks on nation's allies, did not leave the participants with massive warmonger perceptions in years to come. Finally, it would also simulate better the way a rampant expansionist like Hitler could be DoWed an wiped out without each and every one of the Allied nations being seen as massive warmongers (at least, not to the extent that would occur in-game).
As regards the act of bribing one nation to attack another -
The game as it stands makes this a way of keeping warmongers off your back,a way of weakening an opponent, as well as the aforementioned reduction in the penalty for starting a war as a co-belligerant - and other than the cost of the bribe, it's consequence-free.
Again, this goes against every commonsense notion of justice. Should the truth come out, bribing a nation to attack another SHOULD carry almost as much warmonger penalty as attacking that nation yourself AS WELL AS a large penalty for dishonourable behaviour in the same way that breaking a promise does. There should be a chance of the act remaining secret of course, but it should represent some sort of gamble.
