[GS] The handling of grievances during a peace treaty is opaque

[Deggial]

The city conquering grievance system as I understand it:

- When capturing cities during a war, a certain (reduced) amount of grievance is added to the current level.
- Handing the city back during a peace treaty nullifies this amount while keeping it (cede) will add an equal amount an additinal time.
- Razing the city after conquering it will add a certain amount of grievance right away. For obvious reasons, this amount can not be reduced during peace treaties.

Is this correct?
And if it is correct: Is it a good game mechanic? Does it add anything interesting to the game or is it transparent enough? In my opinion, this isn't the case.

Personally, I believe the full amount of (potential) grievance should be added immediately after conquering the city during the war so that the final grievance level after a peace treaty is visible right away!

- When handing the city back during the peace treaty, it doesn't make any difference whether the full amount (conquering + cede) is refunded or just the "intermediate" amount (for capturing as currently). The end result is +0 grievance no matter what!
- Razing the city right after conquering does add the final amount of grievance already. Adding the total amount of "conquering and keeping" would be consistent to this.
- Adding the final amount for conquering and keeping cities to the total "grievance ballance" right away would be more transparent and way easier to keep track of. The unpleasent surprises of unexpected outcomes ("Oh no, I am a warmonger all of a sudden!") should be prevented.


What are your thoughts on this topic?

 

[Siptah]

It is working as intended, and I actually like it. It even tells you when you capture a city in a war that you get half of the grievances now and the rest in the peace deal if you choose to keep it. If you would get all the grievances when capturing a city, you would be seen as a warmonger by all other civs immediately. The way it is working right now, this only happens when you decide to keep them after the war. Still, it allows to keep one or two cities if a surprise war is declared upon you for no grievances - which seems very fair for „peaceful“ playing.

 

[Deggial]

It is working as intended, ....

I am not questioning this - I am questioning the intention.

... If you would get all the grievances when capturing a city, you would be seen as a warmonger by all other civs immediately. ...

This is the question. Ongoing wars don't seem to influence the opinion of others about the player's attitude. They wait until after the war to make up their minds. (After all it is still possible that the conquered cities would be given back.)

... The way it is working right now, this only happens when you decide to keep them after the war. Still, it allows to keep one or two cities if a surprise war is declared upon you for no grievances - which seems very fair for „peaceful“ playing.

This wouldn't change due to my proposal.
Giving back cities would nullify the related grievance - in the current system as well as in my proposal.
The option to keep one or two cities as war reparation is not affected in any way.
The only thing that would change is, that the player would be always know how high the final grievence level will be.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I've only had one game and a limited war in which I took two cities in a peace deal (one ceded, one he gave me as part of the terms because I had set his entire civ on fire. The city he ceded was his capital, and nobody else seemed that upset about it afterwards.

I did not see any indicators when I was doing the peace deal how many grievances it would give me from other civs. Maybe I just missed it.

 

[Deggial]

I've only had one game and a limited war in which I took two cities in a peace deal (one ceded, one he gave me as part of the terms because I had set his entire civ on fire. The city he ceded was his capital, and nobody else seemed that upset about it afterwards.

You can get away with one or two cities - depending on the type of war declared on you. Suprise wars cause more grievance buffer than formal or other war declarations. Therefore more kept cities are "grieve neutral".

I did not see any indicators when I was doing the peace deal how many grievances it would give me from other civs. Maybe I just missed it.

You didn't and this is part of the issue.

- Giving information during the peace treaty would be one (inferior, imo) solution.
- Handing out complete information to the player right away the superior one.

 

[Architect]

Why not just propose a UI adjustment instead of a mechanics adjustment? I think it could be clearer in the trade screen that keeping this city will add grievances. That's all that needs to change IMO.

I also had the other AI's get mad at me during a surprise war I started when I took a city. I passed the threshold that made many of them think I was a bad guy. So your proposal would mean that you could get to this point during a surprise war against you much faster which is why it is the way it is now so you can get retribution without becoming a bad guy.

 

[SaiH]

This is the question. Ongoing wars don't seem to influence the opinion of others about the player's attitude. They wait until after the war to make up their minds. (After all it is still possible that the conquered cities would be given back.)

But ongoing wars do influence the opinion of other players via the grievance system. There are shared grievances for friends/allies of the target civ and also non befriended civs care because there is a diplo modifier for induced grievances with other players.
I think the system is actually quite good as it is.

 

[Deggial]

Why not just propose a UI adjustment instead of a mechanics adjustment? I think it could be clearer in the trade screen that keeping this city will add grievances. That's all that needs to change IMO.

I also had the other AI's get mad at me during a surprise war I started when I took a city. I passed the threshold that made many of them think I was a bad guy. So your proposal would mean that you could get to this point during a surprise war against you much faster which is why it is the way it is now so you can get retribution without becoming a bad guy.

My poropsal doesn't change the game mechanic.
It actually is just an UI adjustment: Add the final grievance change to the display during an ongoing war instead of splitting it to war/peace treaty.

The actual numbers as well as the underlying game mechanics stay exactly as they are.

But ongoing wars do influence the opinion of other players via the grievance system. There are shared grievances for friends/allies of the target civ and also non befriended civs care because there is a diplo modifier for induced grievances with other players.
I think the system is actually quite good as it is.

I only can say that I get all the dennouncements after I finished the war, not during the ongoing fights. (Especially, if I am the target of the war, not the aggressor.)

 

[Architect]

My poropsal doesn't change the game mechanic.
It actually is just an UI adjustment: Add the final grievance change to the display during an ongoing war instead of splitting it to war/peace treaty.

The actual numbers as well as the underlying game mechanics stay exactly as they are.

Your statement about ongoing wars not affecting the world's opinion of you is incorrect. Getting the full grievances when you take a city is absolutely changing a mechanic that really just needs to be clearer in the peace deal UI.

 

[Deggial]

Your statement about ongoing wars not affecting the world's opinion of you is incorrect. Getting the full grievances when you take a city is absolutely changing a mechanic that really just needs to be clearer in the peace deal UI.

If this would be the case, I'd agree with you and rest my case.

Can others confirm this observation?
(As I wrote, I am challenging this claim. I had long and ongoing wars during which everybody seemed willing to give me the benefit of doubt.)

 

[SaiH]

I only can say that I get all the dennouncements after I finished the war, not during the ongoing fights. (Especially, if I am the target of the war, not the aggressor.)

Maybe true that the denouncements come later, but the modifiers are already applied earlier. They need some time to have an actual impact in your relations.
You can confirm that by checking your relations with other civs during the war.

 

[Deggial]

I'll have a look ...

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I keep thinking about what this game would be like if not for forums/other online resources. I mean, I knew the grievances from ceding should be there from places outside the game, and that was the only reason I even knew that I should even be looking for them. I like that the developers do so much interaction with the community, but the game itself should still be self contained; and you shouldn't have to go to to a third party forum to find out what the rules are.

 

[leandrombraz]

It is working as intended, and I actually like it. It even tells you when you capture a city in a war that you get half of the grievances now and the rest in the peace deal if you choose to keep it. If you would get all the grievances when capturing a city, you would be seen as a warmonger by all other civs immediately. The way it is working right now, this only happens when you decide to keep them after the war. Still, it allows to keep one or two cities if a surprise war is declared upon you for no grievances - which seems very fair for „peaceful“ playing.

That's actually a good point, I wasn't looking at it from this perspective. I went on a liberation spree to get some CS yesterday, so I conquered some cities with the intention of giving it back (I was only interested on the CS). Giving half the grievances in the peace deal does help in this kind of situation, I don't take the full hit of conquering a city if I intend to return it, which help to preserve my diplomacy while I still at war. I was ready to say that the mechanic was still pointless but that does make sense.

The only thing that still don't make any sense is that -18 "you occupy one of our cities" penalty, which is removed when you give a city to the AI. If Firaxis get rid of that thing, I'll say case closed and accept this mechanic as fixed and properly working.

 

[Architect]

I think its important for both the diplomatic penalty and the grievances to be separated. One of the biggest problems with game design is when you have a single value that is used for multiple things. It causes all kinds of unintended problems. Grievances is not the representation of how a civ feels about you diplomatically. Grievances measure what a civ can do to another civ before the rest of the world takes notice. So when I stack up a bunch of grievances not only can that Civ attack me and no one will care all the rest of the civs who care about my behavior can use that as a reason to denounce me.

The fact that after a war the civ that I keep cities of is diplomatically unhappy with me is completely reasonable. The grievances number will eventually go down and the rest of the world will give me another chance. The Civ that I took cities from and kept will always think i'm a jerk and it will take work diplomatically to repair that relationship. Also true the other civs in the game don't care that I kept those cities anymore and that's pretty realistic too.

Imagine if China invaded Taiwan. The grievances generated by that would spur the whole world into action. If they won and took Taiwan we would denounce them and maybe declare war over it. If they eventually won and kept Taiwan the grievances would eventually recede and we would eventually normalize relations. The people of Taiwan would be angry at the Chinese mainland for generations.

 

[Cakeathon]

Check out my guide on grievances, has all the information you need.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/grievances-guide.642164/

I think one big problem is how opaque the whole system is, they really should be more open about the grievance cost of everything, that was supposed to be one of the major advantages of grievances over the old warmongering system.

If this would be the case, I'd agree with you and rest my case.

Can others confirm this observation?
(As I wrote, I am challenging this claim. I had long and ongoing wars during which everybody seemed willing to give me the benefit of doubt.)

Yes, grievances apply at all times, obviously ending the war doubles it so it's no surprise you end up with more denouncements once you double your grievances. Also, if you end the war by wiping them, there is a major international backlash but I assume you weren't talking about that.