War after the fall patch

[Cromagnus]

I just played a game that demonstrates perfectly how warring post-patch is inherently messed up. Allow me to set the stage:

Elizabeth - Deity - Continents - Standard

I spawn within ten tiles of Amsterdam, and soon afterwards I find Venice and Hiawatha.

I steal a worker from Venice, but Holland and the Iroquois have no problem with this. They both DoF me and each other, creating a nice little club that Venice isn't in. Since my friends like me more than Venice, I denounce Venice, and on turn 55, I upgrade my composites and march on Venice again, invading on turn 62.

Holland and Hiawatha both have caravans to me, I have multiple trade deals with both of them, and I've denounced someone they like less than me. Despite DoWing Venice, it's all green: we've traded recently, they have an embassy in my capital, we've declared friendships with the same people... happy happy.

I take Venice on turn 70. (with no casualties, I might add, by drawing his warriors out into the field)

All seems well. I'm having a good game... got allied cultural CS by playing my cards right, I just got Pyramids, should have NC by turn 80, have 5 cities with 7 unique luxuries and Stonehenge, thanks to Venice, and more than enough workers to do anything I want... like build roads to my "friends"... steamroll the continent, etc.)

The next turn, they both backstab me. (Backstab = Denounce a friend)
The turn after that, they both DoW me.

This isn't fair. This is as well as you can manipulate diplomacy when warring... if it isn't possible to do what I just described without global DoW, that's complete BS. It's broken. Please fix it. War is nerfed if you can't take a single capital without your best friends attacking you!!! I don't care that Venice only had one city, it's FREAKING VENICE. He has one city until his Merchant finds a second one... so I'm supposed to wait indefinitely?

 

[Polisurgist]

What did you do to Venice when you took it?

 

[mikeville]

What did you do to Venice when you took it?

It doesn't matter. If Venice only had one city, they're gone. The only way he can remove the warmonger penalty with everyone is to liberate someone else.

See if you can find a city state that's been captured. Or even, say the Aztecs took a city from Polynesia (random example), go liberate that one and give it back to Polynesia.

 

[Polisurgist]

It doesn't matter. If Venice only had one city, they're gone. The only way he can remove the warmonger penalty with everyone is to liberate someone else.

Ah. Yeah. Exterminating a civilization es no bueno.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Ha, I noticed the same thing. AI is smarter. They'll do stuff to screw you up now, and they trade with each other so fast you may never get an opportunity to sell off your luxuries.

And I can see why they attacked you. You said yourself you were slowly getting into position to take over the entire continent, didn't you? They thought you were a danger, so they attacked. Makes perfect sense.

Would you prefer them to just sit back idly while you conquer civ after a civ? They did the smart thing, and I'm quite certain most players would've done the same (except they would've waited out the DoF to get no backstab penalty). Why is it only wrong when computer abuses your situation, not the only way around?

 

[EEE_BOY]

I like the new patch, if you wanna war, go world war. Easy abusing AI's bad war tactics is still there, but you have to face the grand strategic set-back for warring.

 

[jogi]

I like that you have to think more carefully about starting wars and capturing cities now. It definitely can seem extreme at times, but it helps the AI with its weakest area: military strategy. Since its always relatively easy to beat the computer at war, the warmonger mechanic serves as a balance - you can still dominate everyone, but if you do, the rest of the world will hate you for it, and probably gang up on you. Since the penalty is halved if you're at war with a common enemy, it pays off to choose your friends wisely, and go to war with as many allies as possible.

Also, if I remember correctly, the warmonger penalty is more severe for each city you capture when there are less cities on the map. That means taking cities in the early game nets you more hate than it would near the end.

 

[whyidie]

When you denounced Venice, did your friend follow suit ?

 

[EK834]

. so I'm supposed to wait indefinitely?

You could have taken a page from Napoléon's book and waited until Venice was this lush plum full of World Wonders and GW of art, writing, music to be scooped up in the early late game... when you were so powerful and hated it no longer mattered one bit if the whole world hated you even more for that crime.

To mitigate the warmonger penalty, you had to have your two friends declare war on Venice first, then join them - but since Venice only has one or very few cities, it would mitigate much of anything and it's not a good target. It's also very lucrative when you have it close to you and it sends its TR to you. It makes a better friend than foe. It's Hiawatha who makes a good target since he goes so wide.

In some of my games I noticed the conquerors often left Venice alone. In one Bismarck had conquered his whole continent but Venice, in another Casimir did the same. I've seen Russia take its two puppets but leave Venice itself alone until the very late game, even though it was the last city it didn't own on its continent.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Ah, you got bitten by new war penalty logic.

The lower the number of the cities on the map, the higher penalty.
The lower number of cities the civ has, whose city is taken, the higher penalty.

Taking last city from civ in early game -> huge warmonger penalty. Expect to be back-stabbed by any AI friends for doing so.

 

[Cromagnus]

I know how this works. I'm saying it's stupid. I did everything I could to follow the rules. I was *good friends* with those people, and I took only one city and they both DoW'd me. I don't care that he only had one city, *THAT IS A BROKEN RULE*. Only capturing one city EVER shouldn't make your Friends DoW you.

Am I really the only one who sees how broken this is? Fine, go back to your turtle science victory - I mean artillery rush, because what's the difference if you're not allowed to attack until t160? It's stupid.

There has never been an incarnation of version of Civ that punished you this harshly for taking only one city ever. And don't tell me I should have taken Onandaga instead, with the Great Wall and Osininka in the way. And don't tell me I should have taken Amsterdam, hiding behind Rotterdam. Taking cities to get to capitals is now a cardinal sin too! And need I remind you these were both friends of mine? You want to talk warmonger penalty? Attack a friend!

So I should have played peacefully and just *hope* that at some point the AIs allowed me to take one city without the world DoWing me? What kind of joke is that?

And no, the AI wasn't being "smart". It had no idea I was planning to take over the whole continent. I was playing nice with everyone but Venice. I took one city. That should not be enough.

 

[Cromagnus]

I like the new patch, if you wanna war, go world war. Easy abusing AI's bad war tactics is still there, but you have to face the grand strategic set-back for warring.

So don't declare war unless you're strong enough to take on the whole world? 7 on 1? That's just ridiculous.

I'm well aware that taking someone's last city is a big hit now. What I wasn't aware of was that even if you were friends with people *who liked you more than the target*, even if you denounced the target, even if it was the first city you'd ever taken, you go straight from Friends to DoW. I think that's absurd. Fine, have them denounce me. But taking one city shouldn't make the whole world DoW you. If y'all actually think that's balanced, I need to go find some new forums.

 

[kingchris20]

Well, take real life for example. If the United States were to invade Mexico or Canada and take it for their own, don't you think that the US allies would "backstab" them and denounce to the world.

I do (in present day)

But of course in throughout history, dynasties allied and conquered other countries lots of time, without any "ill-feelings" about one another. But they usually had similar goals and fought alongside one another.

So I don't know how "stupid" it is in real terms, but it sure makes for less interesting/more frustrating play for Warmongers............which I suppose is the idea.

 

[TLHeart]

So don't declare war unless you're strong enough to take on the whole world? 7 on 1? That's just ridiculous.

I'm well aware that taking someone's last city is a big hit now. What I wasn't aware of was that even if you were friends with people *who liked you more than the target*, even if you denounced the target, even if it was the first city you'd ever taken, you go straight from Friends to DoW. I think that's absurd. Fine, have them denounce me. But taking one city shouldn't make the whole world DoW you. If y'all actually think that's balanced, I need to go find some new forums.

You just committed genocide, and totally eliminated a civilization. Yes your friends should be concerned, since they are so close to a civ that commits genocide.

No it is not broken. They should no longer help a civ that is willing to eliminate another civ that had not attacked anybody.

So they declare war on you, but did they actual send any forces? It is something a warrior will have to consider, can you be self sustaining?

You are fixated on the one city aspect, when you should be looking at the fact you just eliminated an entire civilization. Yes it makes being a war civ harder. It should be extremely difficult to take over the entire world via aggressive wars. No civilization in history has ever accomplished that task.

 

[Silverman6083]

When Germany invaded Poland without a formal declaration of war(denounce), that's what really kicked off France and Great Britain to go to war(commiting genocide also helped), hell even the Soviet Union got involved! Why should you be the exception? You committed Venetian Genocide do expect no consequences?

 

[Civsassin]

I am currently playing an Emperor game in which I eliminated Byzantine. My friend and battle buddy, Japan, remained my friend. Three other civs DOWed me a few turns later. They all sent large armies. Fortunately, I was prepared for it, repelled the attacks, and got good peace settlements. I guess the takeaway is that the only safe way to eliminate another civ is to either war with other civs, or be prepared for the aftermath.

 

[EK834]

So I should have played peacefully and just *hope* that at some point the AIs allowed me to take one city without the world DoWing me?

Allowed? They allow it, there's just a price for it. If you take the path of Domination, the AI will react and hinder you. Why should they remain friend with you when they don't know if they won't be next? It's not purely "realistic" but it works in terms of game play.

If you had Hiawatha and William as allies, your warmongering penalty would have been halved.

Infinite warmongering was fun but overpowered and imbalanced. Even without going for domination taking a whole lot of foreign cities let you get a huge Empire mostly built for you already. You ended up with huge amounts of science, culture, land with luxuries, more spots for happiness buildings, captured Wonders and now you would have huge tourism from looted GWAMW and many cities to make archeologists from without halting your other productions, with not much standing in your way, a huge# of cities from which to choose the most lucrative TR. The downside? Having to set other things aside first to build an army to get that ball rolling, after that you were all set.

The warmongering penalty now balances this out, by cutting you from *some* of the other means of getting science (RA), happiness (trade luxuries) and makes it more difficult to keep a trade network. It's only fair.

Warmongering is still possible, you know now you will lose your friends for that (even the other warmongers have no good reason to befriend you, you're their top rivals for the targets) and those benefits from friendships and so must keep going until you have acquired an Empire big enough to be very strong in science, culture, tourism and production and carry you to the endgame. You need to be careful about your choice of targets, picking those with the larger benefits instead of conquering indiscriminately.

Under the new rules, Venice, one city, was about the worse choice of target you could pick as your first. Huge diplo penalty for genocide, too early in the game to get huge benefits out of it (it's a real Wonder monger and Great people spammer) and tons of enemies you must now face. If you want to conquer just a few cities to boost your Empire before going for science or culture victories, conquer them from larger civs and leave Venice and the CS alone.

It's logical the warmongering penalties are big in the early game, when civs are very small and war might cripple or exterminate them and taking one city is taking 50% of a civ, or 100% in your case. Around the Renaissance it's far less damaging as the world has a much larger amount of cities, and one city counts globally for much less in every way.

 

[Cromagnus]

It should be extremely difficult to take over the entire world via aggressive wars. No civilization in history has ever accomplished that task.

So Domination Victory is supposed to be much harder than Science, Diplomatic, and Cultural?

I did have them as allies. They were not at war with Venice, but is that really what it should take?

Warmongering was not overpowered prior to the fall patch. That's not true at all. It is now significantly nerfed. The game in BNW is *all about trade routes and trading with AIs*. You basically cannot survive on Deity without it. This fall patch has made it so that starting wars prior to artillery is pointless, which *devalues half the civs*, including all the ones with ancient, classical, and medieval UUs. I'm sorry but that's BS. I'm fine with taking one city resulting in denouncements. I'm fine with taking two being tricky unless you're friends with people. I'm fine with taking 3 triggering DoWs even, but one city? I don't care if it's Venice or a CS, it shouldn't *end your game* to take *one city*. I don't care that it's "genocide" or whatever the historical justification is, it's *not balanced*.

And yes, both Hiawatha and William sent large forces. Out of sheer anger, instead of retiring, I kept playing the map. I razed Osininka, one of William's cities and captured Amsterdam before I succumbed, not to their pitiful attempt at military action, but to time. Lost tech, lost income, lost happiness due to fighting a two-front war with inferior units, even though, generally I gave more than I got. Eventualyl, A CS actually razed York, because I couldn't protect everything.

Actually, when I finally did retire, I still controlled Venice, London and Amsterdam, but that was it, and they had cities in between. My tech and economy were so jacked up at that point that there was no point in continuing. (I think I got education at t150, still fighting with CBs)

 

[Cromagnus]

I will say this has me wanting to find a way to win on Deity despite having all civs at war with me, despite how unbalanced and unfair the warmonger penalty is right now... Just to say screw you to the devs.

 

[Moriarte]

If y'all actually think that's balanced, I need to go find some new forums.

You think different forum will have people that are drastically different from people on this forum?

Both of them back stabbing you simultanesouly probably means one of them bought the other one to declare on you, or Venice payed them both, or they came to an agreement to DoW, or some mix of the above. Which means that you haven't managed your diplomacy too well. If you payed Hiawatha (who is easy to bribe) to DoW Willy, things might have gone your way. I tend to sponsor few wars early on in my games and it really sets me back most of the time, cause they usually want a lot. Still, it's better to have NC @ t.120 than end up with 3x DoW. Sometimes it's hard to part with cash.

Little things like that can cost a game, or set back heavily.

Personally, i feel that deity has become a LOT easier, specifically, after vanilla BNW release. In G&K they all launched into space around t.260, or even earlier. After introduction of science % penalty, all sorts of cultural/religious stuff you find yourself well set for any kind of victory well after t.300. (watch deity youtube) That's, like emperor, pre BNW.. Not that i am complaining, just a fact. AI now perform "stunts" like full piety + 3 in honor = hard to lose to that..

You basically cannot survive on Deity without it. This fall patch has made it so that starting wars prior to artillery is pointless

You can still start fine. Don't go DoW'ing a CS + completely destroy a whole civ before turn 70 and you'll be OK.