Should fighting a common enemy eliminate warmonger penalty altogether?

[Mr. Grieves]

I just finished one wacky game. It all started with Alex being Alex, denouncing everybody around, and taunting me a couple of times about my pathetic military.

Spain and Assyria had finally had enough, and launched a relatively huge military campaign together. They did well and Ashurbanipal ended up with 3 out of 4 of Alex's cities. Assyria taking Athens enraged Spain apparently, and she immediately backstabbed him by declaring war.

The Dutch decided to join Isabella, and started taking the cities Assyria had conquered. This was all fine and well, until William took Athens. Isabella threw a hissy fit, backstabbed the Dutch and started attacking them. This angered Pedro and Boudicca, and by the time Isabella exterminated Assyria, the whole world was enveloped in war and chaos. Without me bribing any of them

I'm quite sure neither Isabella nor William were warmongers, since I really had a pathetic army for the entire game. They didn't try to take advantage of that, nor did they care that I befriended their enemies, they just kept accepting my friend requests. This leads me to believe Isabella's warmonger tolerance was so low, she descended the world into a 3000 year war. I ended up winning my fastest CV yet, but I can't help but feel the circumstances made it a little bit too easy.

The Fall Patch addressed this by halving the warmonger penalties when fighting a common enemy, but this game shows that wasn't quite enough, as far as I'm concerned. Any thoughts?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think the system is generally a lot better now that it was in the past. You can still wind up with goofy scenarios occasionally, but if you tried to radically adjust the penalties any more, you'd wind up with even weirder scenarios. The way it is at least ensures a variety of games instead of the same outcome ever time. It used to be that every game you wound up being denounced by everyone, now, that's not so much a thing and is highly variable.

 

[danaphanous]

I'm quite sure neither Isabella nor William were warmongers

lol, what games have you played? Every game I ever get her on Spain starts wars and gains an empire. She's one of the most violent, petty civs I've met--hate her. One game had 2 large continents. By the time I met her continent she had wiped out both civs on it completely. The rest of the game she was trying to take over ours. And she always backstabs her friends. My last Deity game she was at war with everyone at least once and backstabbed pretty much everyone that ever helped her in war. This seems classic spain to me.

 

[Mr. Grieves]

She's one of the most violent, petty civs I've met--hate her.

She's really not that bad though. Most of her flavors are middle of the road, so she can go both ways. Both times she backstabbed somebody, she did so immediately after they took a capital.

Hate Warmongers 6 (8-4)
Willingness to Declare Friendship 7 (9-5)
Loyalty 5 (7-3)
Likeliness to be Deceptive 5 (7-3)
Boldness 5 (7-3)

 

[danaphanous]

Interesting. I must get unlucky then because she's always a duplicitous, backstabbing warmonger in my games. Denounces me immediately if I'm anywhere close to her. Usually for a stupid reason like refusing to not settle near my own cities.

 

[Mr. Grieves]

I'm all for getting a huge diplomatic hit when conquering cities, but not between two AI that wanted to get rid of Alexander in the first place.

 

[GhostSalsa]

All the AI's with Warmonger Hate above 5 are garbage trash personalities that declare on peace keepers for putting down warmongers. I'll agree that it's not as automatic and consistently bad as it was in Vanilla, though. But the basic logic is the same - 1) "Wow Alex is bad. War is bad." 2) "OMG my friend vanquished Alex I will declare war on them."

Isabella is similar to Siam in having a unique with higher base strength than the standard unit. And like Siam she tends to avoid early wars that weaken the warmonger AIs, so she's in a good position mid-game. Given that the AI decides to DOW based on opportunity / military strength, this leads to belligerent mid-game behavior completely inconsistent with their "peaceful" flavors.

 

[cairnsy44]

yeah, I just think that it doesn't make sense when you are in a war and your ally comes to you and says, "Soon we will have dealt with ____ once and for all." Then when you land the knockout blow, your buddy then comes at you with a denouncement. Ruins the immersion a bit.

 

[boghog]

Ruins the immersion a bit.

Think of Alex in the initial example as Nazi Germany, the other parties as the US an Soviet Russia and there you have it: Completely plausible outcome.

 

[cairnsy44]

Think of Alex in the initial example as Nazi Germany, the other parties as the US an Soviet Russia and there you have it: Completely plausible outcome.

True, but France and Britain did not denounce the USA after it dropped the a-bombs on Japan. the denouncements happen more often than not. Even if you do not wipe them out completely. Just capturing the capital is a no-no....

 

[reddishrecue]

The title sounds like a social policy.
Ais will dow for no reason with other ais and not even go for the capital to dominate. Ais often kill off other ais but hardly liberate nor bring back other dead ais back to life.

 

[Callonia]

If you destroy alot of enemy units but never capture a city then bonus will be huge.

But if you destroy alot of units and cap alot of cities then bonuses will start to negate each other because you're now a growing power and AI have to worry about you backstabbing them because you're now even more stronger than before.

Makes sense?