Small rants.

[labellavienna]

So Suleiman (out of nowhere) declared war on me, tries to capture one of my cities...i took out his units, managed to advance on one of his coastal cities and took it.

He then ran crying to the world congress that i took one of his cities and then the next turn: 4 of the 5 civs declared war on me!!!!


Why would this mechanic be in the game?? I didn't start the war yet it is my fault that he lost a city ? WTH

 

[Futumch]

Fighting back, recapturing your own cities, killing his units - that's all quite acceptable. Taking and holding one of his cities? That creates a pretty heavy diplomatic penalty, nearly as bad as razing a city.
I suppose the proper way to not alienate the other Civs would be to declare some sort of formal war. The problem is you've already been dragged into one by that Suleiman git. War of expansion, reconquest etc.

But the way you have described events, yeah, it sucks. Best thing to do now is turn Arabia into one of your colonies. Take Suleiman out behind the shed and show him what happens to snitches.

 

[Victoria]

Suleiman declares a surprise war on you which gives 150 grievance points
You take a single city it’s not gonna take you over 150 grievance points, so what did cause him to have grievance against you and by how much?

 

[Sostratus]

One addition: the grievances system in GS adds a little bit to how this works exactly.
Grievances are like a number line: CivA - 0 - CivB. Generating them will shift where the total "score" is. Whoever is 'worse' according to this system is definitely gonna get the world congress to gang up against them: instead of the old Warmonger score, basically you get a + or - with other leaders for being the "bully" or the "victim" in your grievance relationships with other civs.

Him DOWing you generated grievances, likely 100-150 for formal to surprise war (maybe he denounced her a while back?) but the only thing beefier than a surprise war as a one-off is a city raze at 200.
It sounds like you only captured it though. @Victoria I can't really think of what else would add up to the requisite amount. I mean you can only break or refuse so many promises and those are only 25. And grievances decay during peace.

 

[Victoria]

I can't really think of what else would add up to the requisite amount.

Previous wars
Grievances on others
Continually breaking an espionage promise (promises stack)

 

[acluewithout]

One addition: the grievances system in GS adds a little bit to how this works exactly.
Grievances are like a number line: CivA - 0 - CivB. Generating them will shift where the total "score" is. Whoever is 'worse' according to this system is definitely gonna get the world congress to gang up against them: instead of the old Warmonger score, basically you get a + or - with other leaders for being the "bully" or the "victim" in your grievance relationships with other civs.

Him DOWing you generated grievances, likely 100-150 for formal to surprise war (maybe he denounced her a while back?) but the only thing beefier than a surprise war as a one-off is a city raze at 200.
It sounds like you only captured it though. @Victoria I can't really think of what else would add up to the requisite amount. I mean you can only break or refuse so many promises and those are only 25. And grievances decay during peace.

It's a good system. It means that if someone declares war on you, you might be able to take some Cities in revenge - but you have to think through where you are on the number line and how much grievance taking a city will cost you.

The bit that seems to be missing is more ways to "manufacture" negative grievances, although I haven't really played around with the mechanic much. Absent the AI hassling you or other Civs / City States, the only things I can see that generate grievances against you are the AI converting your cities and refusing your promises. Or am I missing something?

 

[MrRadar]

So Suleiman (out of nowhere) declared war on me, tries to capture one of my cities...i took out his units, managed to advance on one of his coastal cities and took it.

He then ran crying to the world congress that i took one of his cities and then the next turn: 4 of the 5 civs declared war on me!!!!


Why would this mechanic be in the game??

Let's, for the sake of fun, look into a scenario where your and AI Suleiman's roles were swapped.

Meaning, what if you were looking at the Suleiman's lands and suddenly coveted them so much that without further thinking, completely on impulse your finger just pressed 'Declare surprise war', as if acting on it's own.

But in that hypothetical world Suleiman's AI somehow had the means to defeat your invading troops and take one of your cities in revenge, while further amassing more troops and putting the very existence of your nation in danger.
But then, what if in that precarious situation you had an opportunity to call other nations for help in a WC session, so that they maybe activate their troops and make things a little harder for Suleiman and mitigate a bit the consequences of your slight misjudgment of the original situation?

Would you be posting a small rant and questioning this mechanic in that case?

I didn't start the war yet it is my fault that he lost a city ? WTH

It may sound funny, but in my eyes it is exactly your fault that he lost a city. You say it yourself:

i took one of his cities

 

[The googles do nothing]

It would be nice if the target of the session of world congress were invited and offered the chance to prevent the war.

 

[labellavienna]

To be fair I was playing as Eleanor and spamming so much culture i was transforming cities. One of his cities was close to my border and I don't know if it was close to being converted, I don't think i caused him any grievances since i never "peacefully" took any of his. I usually keep to myself, not bothering anybody...(i don't like wars as i suck at them).

I was pissed off yesterday when i wrote the op lol, i played on prince and i have never beat the AI so yeah it was frustrating <3

 

[Victoria]

it was frustrating <3

Fully understand the frustration, I did not think they could get a vote against you for whipping a little city near his borders with that grievance against him in place, then I remembered.... you are probably winning for once and the AI does try little tricks like this near then end of the game. Next time, just pillage their lands, near the end of the game this should speed things up for you and even if you take the city, give it back at the end of the war for gold.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is an example of (usually) game-throwing behavior that also happens to be inconsistent with most of human history. Sometimes it isn't game-throwing because it attempts to suppress a runaway, but more often than not someone smaller relative to target/remaining civs gets randomly dogpiled by an ahistoric/agameplay mechanic.

On the bright side, the AI is woefully inept at prosecuting these wars so the only major downside is if you were relying on those gnats for trade deals.

 

[Bitterman]

Did you have a religion by any chance?

Trying to convert someone religious against his/her will will likely generate A LOT of grievances, like +300 easily.

 

[Hawaiian]

You could also think of it as if Russia acquired Berlin in World War II. I wonder if the rest of the world would have been pissed off. XD

 

[bbbt]

Were you a target of an "emergency"? I think one of the options is if the Civ currently in the lead takes a city it can be triggered to go to world Congress. I'm not sure if it's coded for other civs to take grievances into consideration when joining emergencies or not. It may be an oversight.