New warmonger criteria and penalties?

[djm_jm]

Here in my game, i declared war for Songhai because yours "don't settle near us", and all civs of same continente, considered my civilization a "warmonger".

 

[CanaDutch]

I'm on a continent with Assyria, Songhai and Venice. Assyria declared war on me and Venice (defensive pact) and then I ended up puppeting all 3 of Assyria's cities. Assyria didn't have any friends, so only Songhai with only their capital calls me a warmonger, but they tolerate it (and me stealing 3 of their tiles ) .

 

[Leathaface]

How do you view your diplomatic penalties? I can never find out where.

When I click on a leader and hover all over the leaders screen, I see no option or anything thats shops up. I cannot see it on the diplomatic overview. (where you are told who is friends with who, who denounced who and who is at war.)

(tongue twister FTW.)

 

[ptoss1]

I conquered Sidon. All the friendlies turned into Hostile because they guaranteed Sidon's safety. What's weird is that if they really cared wouldn't they have, like, attacked me while I was sieging Sidon? Like come on. First they tell me to stop attacking them, then they were like, ok you don't care that's great, let's all denounce this guy. But nope. Nobody attacks me. Not one was given for Sidon.

 

[JimTheGreat]

That reddit link says "Conquering civilizations no longer affects that [warmonger] score," but everyone is calling me a warmonger after conquering Denmark, even when he was the one that started the war.

How do you view your diplomatic penalties? I can never find out where.

When I click on a leader and hover all over the leaders screen, I see no option or anything thats shops up. I cannot see it on the diplomatic overview. (where you are told who is friends with who, who denounced who and who is at war.)

(tongue twister FTW.)

On any of the diplomacy screens, hover your mouse over the status (friendly, neutral, etc.) and it will popup the history you have with that civ.

 

[Nials]

But you had to take Harold's cities in order to conquer Denmark, so that's where the warmonger points are coming from.

Just to clarify: You don't get any warmonger penalty for eliminating a civ like you used to, but you do get warmonger points for each city that you take.

 

[kaspergm]

Hmm, not excited about the new Warmonger system from what I hear here - in fact, this is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I had hoped for. I think Warmonger hate should count how many times you DoW someone, but not related to the amount of cities you capture. After all, I would consider someone who DoW's his neighbours 10 times, but sucks at it and hence doesn't capture any cities (read: Any old AI civ) much worse of a warmonger than someone who doesn't DoW anyone, but who takes their cities when they choose to DoW you.

 

[apocalypse105]

Hmm, not excited about the new Warmonger system from what I hear here - in fact, this is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I had hoped for. I think Warmonger hate should count how many times you DoW someone, but not related to the amount of cities you capture. After all, I would consider someone who DoW's his neighbours 10 times, but sucks at it and hence doesn't capture any cities (read: Any old AI civ) much worse of a warmonger than someone who doesn't DoW anyone, but who takes their cities when they choose to DoW you.

No it prevents the issue that you declare war on a AI to retake a city state or ally city states you are not a warmonger but a liberator

If you take cities other leaders should be less interested in you . Especially know most Ai are a little bit peacefull know and want to maintaine a peacefull world.

I only wish they change the warmonger AI like ghenghis and assyria to become more agressive

 

[Falconiano]

Bleh. Denouncing/warmonger penalties were already terribly flawed in GK, this seems even worse.

 

[MantaRevan]

I agree, the penalty should be linked to DoWs. Because it's so difficult to get the AI to surrender or even just back off on levels above prince, it almost forces players to cap a city or two of a civ the DoWs them just to end the war. The player shouldn't be penalized for what basically constitutes self-defense.

 

[Stove]

I wiped out France and then 6 civs, including my friend DoWd me.

 

[pilot00]

It actually works based on the leaders disposition towards war and on your relations with them. In my current game (wiped out Morocco) Only Darius thinks I am a war monger.

 

[Yzman]

Is this true? Does sharing an ideology negate/eliminate the warmonger penalty?

As far as I know, the new formula was described in the Reddit thread above. Warmonger points are now generated on a per-city basis, and are also scaled to the number of cities in the world. The new formula means that conquering several cities now generates more warmonger points than in G&K. Conquering cities in the early game now generates a prohibitive number of warmonger points due to the scaling formula.

The only known exceptions are:

• Civs will ignore warmonger points from DoW'ing/conquering a civ they're also at war with.
• Civs will ignore warmonger points if they haven't met you yet.

It would be great to know if there are other exceptions for shared ideologies, or if any other new factors affect this. The civs in my game seemed to react less negatively if they disliked the civ that I conquered, but that might just be my perception.

It looks like people interested in early warmongering should ensure that they haven't met many other civs and that they're attacking a civ that's already fighting multiple wars.

This makes perfect sense to my game then. The other civs hadn't met me yet so didn't care and Carthage was also at war with Shoshone so they didn't mind it one bit.

 

[MikHolmes]

I think this new system is great on paper (I haven't played enough to get a real feel for it). I like to think about it as trying to simulate human players.

If one player has a lot of cities, and another player DoWs them and takes a few, I'm not going to care nearly as much as if they're attacking someone with only a two cities. It's the fear that they're going for a domination victory; if I saw someone doing that, I'd be telling all the other players we need to stop the warmonger (which is simulated by denouncing).

A human player who starts a lot of small wars and sucks at them is going to bother me a lot less than someone who defends themselves in a war then uses that to take the opponents capital.

Warmonger hate isn't because that leader is a peaceful person who's morals put them against military force; warmonger hate is the fear that they're going to have an advantage over the rest of the world with that taken city, and that they'll be able to leverage that advantage for a domination victory (or any other victory, using those stolen cities)

 

[pilot00]

Warmonger hate isn't because that leader is a peaceful person who's morals put them against military force; warmonger hate is the fear that they're going to have an advantage over the rest of the world with that taken city, and that they'll be able to leverage that advantage for a domination victory (or any other victory, using those stolen cities)

I think that either statement above is true, or its a mess in the game currently (I really hope its the first though).
Right now Darius (and only he) hates me as a war monger (he hates warmongering in general), yet when the ideology pick up time came, he picked up Autocracy.... Further more it seems to be irrelevant weather you take a single city or capital, I got the penalty as soon as I DoWed.

The rest of the world doesn't seem to care at all, because we had DoWs in place with all except Shaka who doesn't care much for diplomacy at all it seems.

 

[malloc84]

I watched "Let's Play" on YouTube. Dude is playing as Brasil. He is actually going for Cultural victory.

Very early in the game Shoshone made a city near him (and where he wanted his third city) and it rapidly expanded.
He tried diplomacy to get the city but failed. War inevitable because he needed that spot (lots of jungle for camps + that city would grow so big that he would have some serious terrain issues).

He started placing troops around the borders and Shoshone leader said that thing "lots of troopz near my borders, wtf?". "Naturally", dude "lied" to him and said army is just passing.
After he declared the war on Shoshone he got instant Warmonger with ALL AI civs because he "lied". Rest of civs are: Morocco, Poland, Portugal and few "Not yet met".

Also at the time, Portugal did not even know Shoshone. Only Brasil and Poland.

Then he discovered Zulu and Venice and even they had "Broken Promise" in red. They are on the other continent and didn't even meet Shoshone or any other civ on his continent.

As he said "how did they know?".

Anyway, if someone is interested you can see it here:

Spoiler :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmDJR68ZGn0&list=PL3beh7tp6hJqIAUSsblz0R2yqJA_H6qJG

 

[Firesmacker]

Yeah, it's pretty weird. I get attacked, defend myself, and the next thing I know, I have the "Warmonger" tag from various civs.

It's jacked up because unless you decimate their army, push them all they way back to their boarders, and preferably take a city, the AI will just keep coming or normally demand concessions from you for peace.

I guess I'm supposed to just lie down and die.

 

[malloc84]

Anyway, if this is the case... is there a time period (turns) after your lying won't matter when you attack?

So if you lie about your troops, maybe if it is not too long, you could wait and then attack and not get the broken promise penalty and warmonger.

 

[kaltorak]

Hmm, not excited about the new Warmonger system from what I hear here - in fact, this is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I had hoped for. I think Warmonger hate should count how many times you DoW someone, but not related to the amount of cities you capture. After all, I would consider someone who DoW's his neighbours 10 times, but sucks at it and hence doesn't capture any cities (read: Any old AI civ) much worse of a warmonger than someone who doesn't DoW anyone, but who takes their cities when they choose to DoW you.

I hadn't thought it this way, but I agree. If you are a crazy warmonger and declare war all the time, but fail at it, you don't get warmonger penalty. But if you are minding your own business and the AI declares on you, and you are good and capture his cities instead, you get warmonger penalty.
Heh, you are right

 

[BranjoHello]

Hmm, not excited about the new Warmonger system from what I hear here - in fact, this is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I had hoped for. I think Warmonger hate should count how many times you DoW someone, but not related to the amount of cities you capture. After all, I would consider someone who DoW's his neighbours 10 times, but sucks at it and hence doesn't capture any cities (read: Any old AI civ) much worse of a warmonger than someone who doesn't DoW anyone, but who takes their cities when they choose to DoW you.

This is exactly how I'm looking at this matter.