Just remove war from the game

[Bakspatel]

So since the launch of BNW I've become dreadful for warfare due to its highly negative consequences in diplomacy, sometimes to the point of staring at how my enemies are destroying my allies as I fear that if I start joining those wars my allies could turn against me. I've experienced the negative effects of going to war in previous games, negative modifiers that you can get in the Renaissance era and last until the Information era. But nothing as bad as this before. Not ever since I've started playing civ 5.

So I just started this game: continents and had Venice and Denmark as close neighbours. Especially Denmark was close, Copenhagen was about 25 tiles away from me. And Denmark being Denmark, I soon began to notice how bad it was going to be.
First he started a war against me. He actually came with a nice force, but I managed to repel his forces (still he nearly had taken a city) and take his whole assaulting army down while they tried to flee. We made peace and I immediately received a denouncement.
This went from bad to worse when I reached the Renaissance era first and he decided to aggressively spy on me. It wasn't until he had stolen four techs from me that my spy finally got his. Then he stole land from me with a GG, and decided that bullying my allied CS wasn't enough and conquered Sofia.
So I had enough because this only could get worse. I build up an terrestrial and naval army and declared war on him. With the sole purpose of removing this serious threat from the face of the earth. It actually wasn't easy in the beginning because he could invest in higher tech units while stealing other required techs from me.
Half way during my campaign, England discovered all civs and the WC was started. After that I freed Sofia and captured his last two cities. Within two rounds, I received seven (!) denouncements - with attitudes going as bad as 'hostile'. And for the first time ever playing Civ5 I managed to downgrade myself as the kicking ball for the rest of the world.
The real game has yet to start: Ideologies haven't kicked in yet but it looks like this is going to be a very hard game to finish. From my experiences of AI's being the kicking ball of the community I don't even expect international relations to improve much more. And all for removing a hostile threat, and starting one war; one I didn't even want to begin because Denmark was ideal for trading relations.

I really really really hope that the Fall patch is going to do something about this massive anti-war attitude of BNW. I don't expect all civs to start tolerating warmongering but in its current status it is just killing the game for me.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Did you at least try to get the other civs against him in diplomacy? Apart from Denouncements, there are a number of tools to keep warmongering civs pariahs. If you neglect to diplomatically isolate your enemies, then don't be surprised if people stand up for them.

 

[Dogmouth]

The problem boils down to CiV's complete lack of a casus belli system. This has always been strange, but I agree that it's worse with BNW. The problem is compounded by the fact that the UI (the diplomatic screens) strongly implies that you get a free DoW or reduced-cost DoW's for declaring war after you catch a spy and defending CS's that you've sworn to defend. You’re given these special options for declaring war in the spy diplo screen and protecting a CS, but they’re meaningless! In your case, Denmark was being a warmonger and an untrustworthy lout. In most games other civs would understand that you’re addressing a threat; in BNW you’re treated no differently than a vicious war addict who randomly conquers a peaceful civilization.

 

[steveg700]

The real shame here is that it doesn't like it would be difficult at to simply let a civ's warmonger status cancel out the diplo penalty. If you DoW peaceful civ's, you get the diplo penalty. If someone steps in and DoW's you, they don't.

 

[quantum42]

There should be an option (sliding scale) to adjust the aggressiveness (warmongering) traits of the AI.

 

[Scott Jegg]

Did you know the other civs before the WC was founded?

My inkling is that he did and was friendly with some of them. If their introduction to you is "this new guy attacking our friend", then it's no real surprise the chain of denouncements followed, as most likely they are all friendly with each other and backing each other up.

It pays to know who your enemy is in bed with. I've noticed that civs tend to love each other if there are trade routes in place. If you were the odd one out in all of it, it stands to reason they would hate you, quickly.

 

[Jatta Pake]

Thoughts and a couple questions:

It's been my experience that the AI is more understanding of your declarations of war when two things happen: You first Denounce them and you do not conquer their cities. Think of it like this - the world community prefers no war but they absolutely oppose military conquest. So if you march into your neighbor's territory and destroy his army, but show mercy without taking his cities and let him negotiate a peace deal, the AI will not view you as a warmonger.

From an "immersion" perspective, this kind of makes sense. Civs are expected to grant mercy on defeated civs but not genocide them out of existence.

The same deal exists with City States. The civ community on your planet opposes people killing City States.

I do agree that this change is not very transparent. But as a game mechanic, it balances warfare so neither the player nor the AI can be destroyed without broader world consequences. I think what we as warmonger players need to do is find a way to circumvent these broader consequences in game through strategy.

Question 1: Did you denounce Denmark before your war of conquest?
Question 2: Did you attempt to turn other civs against Denmark prior to your war of conquest?

 

[Polisurgist]

The only thing the warmonger penalty is is the AI doing the thing any rational human player does and be wary of the guy whose colors you're suddenly seeing all over the map.

Yes, even if you asked that guy to get into a war with you, you still are gonna be concerned when he's capping cities left and right.

 

[ehecatzin]

The problem boils down to CiV's complete lack of a casus belli system.

This

Some people fear the game will try to be a Paradox game if it implements a casus belli system, but Civ could really make great use of it if implemented in a very simple way.

We need a way for the AI to make sense of wars, a simple casus belli system along with a war score are some of the things that can be improved upon on a third expansion.

 

[Dogmouth]

The only thing the warmonger penalty is is the AI doing the thing any rational human player does and be wary of the guy whose colors you're suddenly seeing all over the map.

Yes, even if you asked that guy to get into a war with you, you still are gonna be concerned when he's capping cities left and right.

If this were true, you'd get a warmonger penalty for teching up and peaceful expansion. Nowadays, the AI seems strangely unconcerned that you're an era ahead and building ship components, but it freaks out when you actually protect that CS you promised to protect.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

This

Some people fear the game will try to be a Paradox game if it implements a casus belli system, but Civ could really make great use of it if implemented in a very simple way.

We need a way for the AI to make sense of wars, a simple casus belli system along with a war score are some of the things that can be improved upon on a third expansion.

I've always had a rule fo thumb regarding these

Civ 5 can have Causus Belli, but it needs to be a simple thing.

Paradox games usually have extremly complex features.

So if the Devs can find a way to implement Causus Belli into the game without making it complex, I think it is fine.. in fact, I just got an idea.

Use modifiers, actually implement diplomatic modifiers INTO the player.

For example, take the "I covet wonders you built"

The player cannot simply decide "oh, I choose this" instead, it will show up in the list for causus bellis, this causus belli is unlocked when you have been beaten to a wonder where you have built at least 51% of it when it was built, you can then declar war with the "Causus Belli" on the nation that has the wonder you just lost building, and if you manage to take the city with the wonder in it you can get away with the war.

Well, something along those lines anyway. I doubt we'll see Causus Belli in Civ 5 unless it's in a third expansion pack, but maybe Civ 6 could have seeing as it would be Civ 5 with better features (as it usually ends up anyway)

 

[neilkaz]

Yes, it is distressing the diplo when concerned with wars still has some broken and silly aspects however what the OP did to trigger 7 denouncements was to completely eliminate Denmark.

The AI's hate it when the human player genocides another civ. Replay it and leave Denmark with one lousy pillaged and starved city on poor ground and then make peace with him and I expect you won't harm relations with the others.

 

[Polisurgist]

If this were true, you'd get a warmonger penalty for teching up and peaceful expansion. Nowadays, the AI seems strangely unconcerned that you're an era ahead and building ship components, but it freaks out when you actually protect that CS you promised to protect.

For one, I do think that the AI could stand to be a little more wary in diplomacy when it's dealing with someone that's way ahead, but I don't think that it's wrong to be more concerned about an opponent that's clearly not bothered by the idea of expanding at its neighbors' expense. It would be just plain stupid not to do that, even if the one who's doing the conquering is nominally your friend.

 

[Dragonmaster83]

Yes, it is distressing the diplo when concerned with wars still has some broken and silly aspects however what the OP did to trigger 7 denouncements was to completely eliminate Denmark.

The AI's hate it when the human player genocides another civ. Replay it and leave Denmark with one lousy pillaged and starved city on poor ground and then make peace with him and I expect you won't harm relations with the others.

If Im not mistaken, the penalty for complete genocide is lessen'd but it is increased per city take. So basically the leave with 1 city for a only a small diplo hit is gone as if you took all but 1 city, the pentaly is pretty much the same anyway.

Basically what several people above said. You should check to see who else was friends with denmark and did some diplo to get some in your favor instead of his so when you do decide to war, they are your friends, not his. Also you do pretty much need ot denounce before warring as you seemly are hit with a higher war penalty.

Though you should of done all you can to get him to start the war with you as then he gets the DoW penalty.

 

[ehecatzin]

I've always had a rule fo thumb regarding these

Civ 5 can have Causus Belli, but it needs to be a simple thing.

Paradox games usually have extremly complex features.

So if the Devs can find a way to implement Causus Belli into the game without making it complex, I think it is fine.. in fact, I just got an idea.

Use modifiers, actually implement diplomatic modifiers INTO the player.

For example, take the "I covet wonders you built"

The player cannot simply decide "oh, I choose this" instead, it will show up in the list for causus bellis, this causus belli is unlocked when you have been beaten to a wonder where you have built at least 51% of it when it was built, you can then declar war with the "Causus Belli" on the nation that has the wonder you just lost building, and if you manage to take the city with the wonder in it you can get away with the war.

Well, something along those lines anyway. I doubt we'll see Causus Belli in Civ 5 unless it's in a third expansion pack, but maybe Civ 6 could have seeing as it would be Civ 5 with better features (as it usually ends up anyway)

Exactly it has to be kept simple, and it could use the modifiers already in game, as well as expanding on the lacking parts of diplomacy (like being able to make the same demands the AI can).

Some other would be the CS protection and missionary spamming, SP could unlock certain casus bellis, like Piety unlocking holy wars, and could open the door to some interesting diplomatic scenarios like religous allies jumping in to defend you in a holy war (defender of the faith). It could also make Honor that much more interesting.

I dont know if it can be done in Civ 5, after all much of whats wrong in the game is dragging since vanila, but if it can, its certainly expansion material.

 

[Polisurgist]

If Im not mistaken, the penalty for complete genocide is lessen'd but it is increased per city take. So basically the leave with 1 city for a only a small diplo hit is gone as if you took all but 1 city, the pentaly is pretty much the same anyway.

The penalty for taking each city goes up the fewer cities the civ you're attacking has left. So taking the last city from a civ who's down to just one is still the biggest one there is. It just isn't all-or-nothing anymore, where you could take everything but that one-tile crap island and be OK.

This is apparently a problem for some people.

 

[Merciorum]

The really annoying thing about war is how if you have a defensive pact with someone, and a friend of yours declares war on him/her and you automatically join in, then you get the negatives for declaring war on him! Needs to be fixed.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Exactly it has to be kept simple, and it could use the modifiers already in game, as well as expanding on the lacking parts of diplomacy (like being able to make the same demands the AI can).

Some other would be the CS protection and missionary spamming, SP could unlock certain casus bellis, like Piety unlocking holy wars, and could open the door to some interesting diplomatic scenarios like religous allies jumping in to defend you in a holy war (defender of the faith). It could also make Honor that much more interesting.

I dont know if it can be done in Civ 5, after all much of whats wrong in the game is dragging since vanila, but if it can, its certainly expansion material.

Devs can add anything to the game, not a mod-thign.

And I did mean the existing modifiers (You've denounced us, etc. Wonder Covet is an example of one of th emodifiers).

 

[Novalia]

Just smash everybody!

 

[Polisurgist]

Just smash everybody!

This is also a fine strategy.