Make Defensive war not lead to "war-monger" status

[ricenoodle]

Is there anything I can mod so that when I start taking over cities in a situation where another civ declared war on ME, I don't get any warmonger points?

Cus I don't really like it when I'm called a warmonger for B****-slapping a person that tried to kill me first.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

This should go in the modding section.
Moderator Action: -> moved.

And I agree.

 

[nefloyd]

It's not a defensive war if you start conquering and holding territory that wasn't yours.

 

[Lord Kid]

It's not a defensive war if you start conquering and holding territory that wasn't yours.

I disagree, because as it is the only way you can get them to back off for less than all your gold, gpt, luxes, and cities is by taking at least one of theirs. Until that is changed, I agree with the OP that the war monger points need to not be applied to the individual who got DoW'd.

 

[ambill10]

Maybe you only start garnering warmonger points after you decline a straight up peace treaty with no other conditions on your side?

 

[Lord Kid]

Maybe you only start garnering warmonger points after you decline a straight up peace treaty with no other conditions on your side?

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying if you refuse the first peace treaty they offer, where it is usually demanding all of your stuff, or a peace treaty that is only peace for 10 turns?

 

[Sherlock]

I'd say if someone else starts a war it should be up to you to decide how to end it.

I'd say if someone attacks your ally (CS or Civ) you should be able to come to their aid without diplomatic penalty.

The game seems designed to reward players who want to go to war and crush everyone. And to punish players who want to defend other Civ's or CS's.

A pity. I think a game without these biases would have a lot more options, more depth, and offer more fun to a wider variety of players.

 

[Tachii]

As soon as you start conquering cities I'd wager that's when you get the diplo hit.

I don't see how that is "defensive" any longer (disregarding some wise saying how the best defense is offense or whatever). And no, it's not the "only" way to stop them from demanding everything you have for a peace treaty.

 

[AriochIV]

It's not a defensive war if you start conquering and holding territory that wasn't yours.

Really? WWII wasn't a defensive war for the Allies because they started occupying Germany and Japan? The Allies were warmongers because they demanded the unconditional surrender of the nations that started the war, instead of appeasing them with a quick peace treaty (so they could attack again as soon as they'd regrouped)?

Starting a war of aggression should have very serious consequences if you fail. Calling me a warmonger because I dare to make the aggressor pay for his mistake is a little silly.

 

[nefloyd]

Bringing up real world context will just get the thread locked and has no real relevance to game balance.

You are perfectly capable of being at war and defending your own lands. If you want to liberate captured city-states or civs, you can do that. But start capturing and keeping/razing enemy cities and you start building up warmonger status, plain and simple.

I disagree, because as it is the only way you can get them to back off for less than all your gold, gpt, luxes, and cities is by taking at least one of theirs. Until that is changed, I agree with the OP that the war monger points need to not be applied to the individual who got DoW'd.

And...so what? Are you losing the war? Yea, the AI is crazy about what it wants and how it rates strength. The real problem is the AI calculates military power solely based on strength and not on the losses suffered by each side. You don't need to end a war status you're in no danger of losing.

 

[PibbZ]

Starting a war of aggression should have very serious consequences if you fail. Calling me a warmonger because I dare to make the aggressor pay for his mistake is a little silly.

I totally agree with this aswell. It hurts my prefered way to play.

 

[nefloyd]

Meaning your preferred way ACTUALLY IS to warmonger and conquer the world, you just want to do it without the penalty of other Civs recognizing this.

 

[PibbZ]

Meaning your preferred way ACTUALLY IS to warmonger and conquer the world, you just want to do it without the penalty of other Civs recognizing this.

No My prefered way to play is to defend my homeland, defend city states and defend the weaker civs in the game. Liberating conquered cities and returning them to the owner.

Even if I don't do anything aggressive and only defend my self and my allies, I still get the warmonger penalty if I decline a peace offer from the aggressor.

 

[nefloyd]

Uh, no you don't. You don't get warmonger by refusing to accept peace offers where the AI wants 4 luxuries and all your gold. I have had thousand year wars with an AI who makes no headway in my lands yet constantly offers ridiculous 'peace offers' involving my giving up every non-capital city and all my resources. That doesn't make me a warmonger, what are you thinking? If you got the warmonger penalty you must have done something to increment it. Wanting to "defend" CS and other Civs doesn't give you any just cause in the eyes of the AI to declare war to attack the aggressor.

You get warmonger points if you declare war. You get warmonger points if you puppet, annex, or raze enemy cities. Yes, you can likely take a city or two here and there and punish an AI that was stupid to attack you. That doesn't give you cause to obliterate them off the map nor is it an excuse to polish up your army and stand around with a chip on your shoulder shouting "Declare war on me! I dare you! I double-dare you!" and expect the rest of the world not to get angry when you wreck through the Civ that does. That's just a lame excuse of trying to provoke the AI so you can pretend to be 'the good guy' and it won't work too well.

 

[JetStream]

i think if you really want to go the peaceful way, there are two choices when you get DoW'ed. First, try to attain peace by holding of any attack till they voluntarily stop since you dont like war and Second, attaining peace by means of force. The latter is a warmonger just like the civ that Declared. only difference was the declaration.

 

[PibbZ]

Maybe, but in my last game, Caesar declared on my friend Napoleon. We had a defensive pact, so he also declared on me. Caesar wiped out France before i could get any reinforcements to their lands, but when I did, I re-captured all his cities.

Paris had the option to be liberated, and revived Napoleon from death. The other 2 cities however, I had to annex before gifting them back to him.

Could be something fishy going on, but I have in my current game not captured a single city in enemy territory with the intent to keep or raze it.

I have however attacked multiple units in their lands before they reach my borders.

Anyway, Hammurabi calls me and says that my warmongering have not gone unnoticed, and denounces me

 

[VimesUK]

I have played a few games where war was declared on me and when attacked I have managed to fight them off and capture a few of their cities, not puppet or raise them, without, it seems, taking a diplo hit.

In fact in my last game I did just that with the Byzantium's and after the war they became a very close ally and when I look under our friendship it shows that we have been at war in the past but they do not hold it against me.
In my current game the same applied with Germany as they declared war on me and I took Cologne and rescued a Civ state they conquered and after they still became friends and I did not take any hits until...

Korea asked me to go to war against Ghandi and I agreed and asked for ten turns to prepare. But I messed up and forgot that he was my ally and thus took a diplo hit and became known as a blood thirsty one, even though it was a phoney war where no blows were exchanged.So I expected that result as it was me declaring war and war on my ally.!

I try and remember to use the info addict mod to check relationships before making such agreements but in the later game stages the screen looks like a massive spiders web with all the Civs around it and I tend to get confused who is friendly etc with who.

 

[nefloyd]

We had a defensive pact, so he also declared on me.

No, if you had a defensive pact, YOU declared war on HIM as a result of him declaring war on your pact-buddy. That WILL give you warmonger points because YOU are declaring war.

Also, gifting or trading cities away doesn't remove the warmonger points you got by annexing them. If you aren't instantly liberating a city, you are taking a hit for it.

 

[PibbZ]

No, if you had a defensive pact, YOU declared war on HIM as a result of him declaring war on your pact-buddy. That WILL give you warmonger points because YOU are declaring war.

Also, gifting or trading cities away doesn't remove the warmonger points you got by annexing them. If you aren't instantly liberating a city, you are taking a hit for it.

Allright, that explains it! And confirms my thoughts on how broken the diplomacy is. Any idea why I couldn't liberate the cities immidiately?

 

[black213]

Wasn't this already done in G&K, as in being declared war on and then capturing cities doesn't lead to warmonger penalties? I remember reading about it somewhere and I can say from experience it might be true.