Puzzled about warmonger...

[Soren L]

Wasn't one of the worst things, playing vanilla, that all civs thought of you as a warmonger even though you never attacked, only GOT attacked?
Why has that not changed? I hardly ever attack anybody, but get attacked all the time because they see me as a warmonger and they all hate warmongers, even though they are attacking each other left and right.
There should be a big difference between being attacked and attacking in this mod.

 

[Txurce]

Wasn't one of the worst things, playing vanilla, that all civs thought of you as a warmonger even though you never attacked, only GOT attacked?
Why has that not changed? I hardly ever attack anybody, but get attacked all the time because they see me as a warmonger and they all hate warmongers, even though they are attacking each other left and right.
There should be a big difference between being attacked and attacking in this mod.

The difference that I see is not between attacking and being attacked, but between conquering cities and not.

 

[Gazebo]

The difference that I see is not between attacking and being attacked, but between conquering cities and not.

Correct - if you go on a conquering spree after being attacked, it is reduced to 80% of normal warmonger, but you're still benefiting from war (literally 'mongering from war').

G

 

[ElliotS]

get attacked all the time

they are attacking each other left and right.

What's the problem? o.0

 

[Dawnpromise]

I think the problem a lot of people have is that there's no way to fend of warmongers without becoming a warmonger in the process.

If you just hold ground and wait for them to peace off you get maybe 10+ turns before they're right back on your borders trying it again but with better/more troops. But if you break their attack and take territory as 'punishment' for attacking you everyone sees YOU as the problem, not Genghis or Monty for refusing to play nice but YOU for punching their faces in as retaliation.

There's just no real way to deal with warmongers outside of war and then everyone sees YOU as the bad guy for solving the problem.

 

[Stalker0]

One middle ground solution is a pillage campaign. Take their workers and smoke their lands. Yes they will come back, but every time weaker as your economy stays intact while their's gets weaker. Further, you won't suffer the same diplomatic penalties.

 

[Soren L]

I think the problem a lot of people have is that there's no way to fend of warmongers without becoming a warmonger in the process.

If you just hold ground and wait for them to peace off you get maybe 10+ turns before they're right back on your borders trying it again but with better/more troops. But if you break their attack and take territory as 'punishment' for attacking you everyone sees YOU as the problem, not Genghis or Monty for refusing to play nice but YOU for punching their faces in as retaliation.

There's just no real way to deal with warmongers outside of war and then everyone sees YOU as the bad guy for solving the problem.

You said it better than me. That's the exact point I wanted to make!

 

[CrazyG]

It is kind of amusing when I take 2 cities from the mongols, who control 40 cities, only to be denounced by other people also at war with Mongolia.

One way to alleviate this is to liberate some of the cities you take, rather than conquer them.

 

[wobuffet]

Q: Does conquering one city and liberating another city of the same size balance out, net increase warmonger status, or net decrease warmonger status?

 

[Soren L]

One way to alleviate this is to liberate some of the cities you take, rather than conquer them.

That worked in vanilla. Dosen't seem to have the same desired effect in VP. I just liberated a city state from Mongolia and the next round America declared war without being allied with them! And I don't even have oil

 

[Gazebo]

Q: Does conquering one city and liberating another city of the same size balance out, net increase warmonger status, or net decrease warmonger status?

Rough balance.

G

 

[civplayer33]

Follow-on-Q: Is there such a thing as negative warmonger score? So that if I liberate 3 cities first and then puppet another 3 it'll more or less balance out? Would this work in separate wars or only the in the same war (or not at all)?

 

[Gazebo]

Follow-on-Q: Is there such a thing as negative warmonger score? So that if I liberate 3 cities first and then puppet another 3 it'll more or less balance out? Would this work in separate wars or only the in the same war (or not at all)?

Nope, bottoms out at zero (i.e. no warmonger).

G

 

[ElliotS]

Nope, bottoms out at zero (i.e. no warmonger).

G

What about liberating or conquering a city over and over? I had a Moroccan city that was getting taken by Denmark every turn before I freed it every turn for like 15-20 turns. I kept liberating it to pop my unit out. What happens for both my and Denmark's Warmonger score, and what would happen if the last time I took it I kept it?

 

[Gazebo]

What about liberating or conquering a city over and over? I had a Moroccan city that was getting taken by Denmark every turn before I freed it every turn for like 15-20 turns. I kept liberating it to pop my unit out. What happens for both my and Denmark's Warmonger score, and what would happen if the last time I took it I kept it?

Repeat captures are severely reduced in punishment:

// (iWarmongerWeight / iNumCitiesRemaining) * (CapturedCityPop / (RemainingTotalPop/iNumCitiesRemaining))
    if(pCity != NULL && eWarmonger != NO_PLAYER)
    {
        int iNumTimesOwned(pCity->GetNumTimesOwned(eWarmonger));
        if(iNumTimesOwned > 1)
        {
            iWarmongerWeight /= (iNumTimesOwned * 5);
        }
    }

 

[Deadstarre]

Repeat captures are severely reduced in punishment:

// (iWarmongerWeight / iNumCitiesRemaining) * (CapturedCityPop / (RemainingTotalPop/iNumCitiesRemaining))
    if(pCity != NULL && eWarmonger != NO_PLAYER)
    {
        int iNumTimesOwned(pCity->GetNumTimesOwned(eWarmonger));
        if(iNumTimesOwned > 1)
        {
            iWarmongerWeight /= (iNumTimesOwned * 5);
        }
    }

I know its come up before, and I'm personally fine with the situation as-is, but now seeing that formula in front of me specifically to account for recaptured cities makes me think again- is there no room for reconsideration on adding that same formula to account for recaptured cities relating to war-weariness penalty? ya know, the thing where a city goes back and forth repeatedly in a few short turns and then both parties end up with tremendous / max weariness for 'losing' the same city over and again (unless like in ElliotS case one person is liberating, so there only one party really gets screwed on the weariness).

At first this scenario had irked me, but then i found the ways to best use it to my advantage to take down runaways and serious competitors, but really given the severity of consequence for having max war weariness and the AI's lack of full comprehension over what happens next when they capture the same city for the 3rd and 4th time, overall I do think this kind of formula would make a lot of sense to lessen the weariness penalty when its just the same city turning hands over and over again


unless something was added already... %100 disclosure it's been awhile since i found myself making use of this specific scenario, for all I know you snuck something pertinent to this in a recent patch (like when Spies now meaningfully account for the difference of influence levels when attempting coups )


edit: Actually I guess in ElliotS example 2 parties got screwed by the weariness, Denmark and Morocco, just not ElliotS =)

 

[Gazebo]

I know its come up before, and I'm personally fine with the situation as-is, but now seeing that formula in front of me specifically to account for recaptured cities makes me think again- is there no room for reconsideration on adding that same formula to account for recaptured cities relating to war-weariness penalty? ya know, the thing where a city goes back and forth repeatedly in a few short turns and then both parties end up with tremendous / max weariness for 'losing' the same city over and again (unless like in ElliotS case one person is liberating, so there only one party really gets screwed on the weariness).

At first this scenario had irked me, but then i found the ways to best use it to my advantage to take down runaways and serious competitors, but really given the severity of consequence for having max war weariness and the AI's lack of full comprehension over what happens next when they capture the same city for the 3rd and 4th time, overall I do think this kind of formula would make a lot of sense to lessen the weariness penalty when its just the same city turning hands over and over again


unless something was added already... %100 disclosure it's been awhile since i found myself making use of this specific scenario, for all I know you snuck something pertinent to this in a recent patch (like when Spies now meaningfully account for the difference of influence levels when attempting coups )


edit: Actually I guess in ElliotS example 2 parties got screwed by the weariness, Denmark and Morocco, just not ElliotS =)

I wasn't aware there was a demand for this - it'd be pretty easy to add a variation on it.

G

 

[Deadstarre]

I wasn't aware there was a demand for this - it'd be pretty easy to add a variation on it.

G

I remember it coming up, and I remember people on both sides (very fine people). I could make a quick poll to find out what the demand actually is

 

[Gazebo]

I remember it coming up, and I remember people on both sides (very fine people). I could make a quick poll to find out what the demand actually is

Oops I already did it.

 

[ElliotS]

edit: Actually I guess in ElliotS example 2 parties got screwed by the weariness, Denmark and Morocco, just not ElliotS =)

Art of the deal baby!