1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

War after the fall patch

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Cromagnus, Oct 25, 2013.

  1. GoStu

    GoStu King

    Sep 16, 2013
    I too think the warmonger penalties are overkill, especially early-game and especially where city-states are involved.

    I think that's what makes being forward-settled really really ing obnoxious. You've either got to roll over and take it, or have the whole world despise you for cleaning up one of Pocatello's, Hiawatha's or Shaka's little ******** towns that's in your way. Sadly, the AI has no recognition of "oh man, that'd piss me off too, go get'm!", so instead YOU'RE the jerk.

    In a similar vein, I think the warmonger penalty against city-states shouldn't be calculated the same way as a normal Civ's. The first one or two you take should be mildly off-putting, but only really piss someone off if they were allies. Maybe the calculation should be in relation to the number of city-states left as a whole, as though they're one civ collectively.
  2. EK834

    EK834 Prince

    Aug 26, 2013
    Well, they did. They didn't react as simplistically as they do in the game, and most often than not they did nothing at all because they couldn't or it didn't touch them directly (it happened too far), but conquerors still inspired dread and hatred (look in Greek accounts for descriptions of the Celts, for instance, or in Japanese accounts for their dread of the Mongols). What they often did was to offer tribute or in other ways seek to appease warmongers and keep their out of their lands, or they prayed for the death of the warmongering leader.

    Personally I think the warmonger penalty should remain as it is in the early game, except it shouldn't extend outside the landmass of the warmonger. I don't think civs should give a warmonger status to a civ that don't even have the technologies to come attack it beyond isolated acts of piracy with triremes.

    In Classical this should touch Civs that can be reached with embarked units if they have Optics to know this, but it should still be modulated a lot by distance to the warmonger. Far away the penalty should be much smaller (reflecting a dislike or vague worry, but no immediate fear and feeling of a threat), and those would fade away in time and rather fast. Conquering outside your continent at the time would extend the full penalty you get from civs on your landmass to extra-continental civs automatically.

    In short: In ancient/classical, conquer your continent but beware extending your bad reputation abroad.

    In Medieval it should start to touch everyone who know the civs involved, but be severely increased/decreased by religion. Maximum penalty would be gotten from civs sharing the religion of the victim, and a diplo bonus should be given by those civs sharing the religion of the attacker. The reduction for distance from the threat would be reduced from what it was in the early eras.

    In short: in Medieval/Renaissance it's time to deal with your religious foes, and make solid friends from your Crusade in the process (with a big bonus from the civ owning the Holy City you're crusading for, if it's not you) but you leave those sharing your religion alone for now or you'll be penalized.

    In the Renaissance the diplo bonus/penalties for religion would be reduced, but the penalty should globally be lower too, as long as conquered cities are puppeted and not annexed or razed. There could be a bonus when you trade back your conquests to their original owner.

    From industrial on, the religion aspect would be gone or very minor, and the warmonger penalty should rise again. It would be the last era where distance from the threat can reduce the penalty, if not by much anymore.

    By Modern I think shared ideologies should reduce the penalty as much as sharing a war does, but razing cities, eradicating the last city of any civ would carry a heavy penalty, high enough that it would even have a minor impact with a civ that had a DoF/Shared Ideology and was at war alonside you. No one likes or forgets genocidal maniacs.
  3. Tabarnak

    Tabarnak R.I.P.

    Sep 17, 2010
    Regards to the OP :

    You DoWed Venice twice. It's already a big malus for you. If you want to reduce warmonger penalty you should make sure to DoW only once for each civ. Since that you also completely destroyed Venice, it makes automatically impossible to stay friendly with your neighbors.
  4. goremand

    goremand Chieftain

    Oct 26, 2013
    What I wonder is, does the AI use the same logic for each other? Seems to me this would escalate quickly: AI captures cities > Is hated by all > Gets Dow'd > Other AI captures his cities > Other AI hated by all > Other AI gets Dow'd > Yet another AI captures HIS cities > Repeat until everyone hates each other forever.

    For example in my last game, I was attacked repeatedly by my neighbor Montezuma (obviously intent on conquering my cities) until I finally counter-invaded and took him out (2 cities). Now everyone on the continent hated me including my previously friendly neighbor Hiawata who Dow'd me before my troops could even heal. He invaded and again the intention was clearly to conquer my cities. Question is, if I had lost to Montezuma, woldn't he have been attacked by Hiawata instead of me? And if Hiawata had won, wouldn't he in turn be hated and attacked by his neighbors? This whole system just seems to create so much hatred...
  5. Cromagnus

    Cromagnus Deity

    Sep 11, 2012
    It wouldn't have mattered how many times I DoW'd him. Consistently, in every game, I get severely punished for ever taking cities. And in the games where I don't ever DoW, if the AI goes on a rampage, they can take mine with no repercussions. If I fight back and actually take a city I get denounced and DoW'd.

    In the same patch where they boosted AI likelihood of forward-settling and DoW, they punished players taking cities under any circumstances, at least prior to t150 or so when you can afford to give the whole world the finger and start artillery-moshing everyone. They punish you for warmongering, they punish you for pre-emptive strike, they punish you for taking a city in revenge after being DoW'd.

    I think it's weird that people defend the insta-Denounce/DoW as being "logical" when the player is attacking, but ignore the fact that when the AI does the same thing it doesn't get the whole world attacking in response. In fact, quite the opposite. I've been DoW'd after being DoW'd, because the AI on one side of me smelled weakness when the other AI started killing my units. It's very convenient to say "that's only fair, they're reacting to you being a bloodthirsty killer", but then ignore how the AI is often Machiavellian to the extreme, attacking you because you've been weakened.

    It very well may be a matter of player score. The player is almost always in last place until t130 or more on Deity. Maybe the AI only denounces and DoWs because it's coded to pick on weaklings. Fine. Whatever the cause, whatever the interaction of existing game mechanics is with the patch, the result leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    I imagine it doesn't bother most people, because most people never attempt domination, and certainly most never attempt it on Deity. The irony here was that peaceful victories on Deity became *easier* with BNW. So I must say I find it frustrating, given that Domination, especially early DoW Domination was already the hardest way to play on Deity. (other than perhaps OCC, but that's different... OCC is really all about having epic dirt. :p)

    To those who say it's good that Deity is challenging, again, the standard "tech your way to artillery or science victory" WAS the easy way to play on Deity prior to the patch. Warmongering had already been nerfed, especially early. They just made *the hard way* much harder. Early war already resulted in a longer tech deficit, making it harder to catch up. I did occasionally win, but my early war games on Deity were touch and go at best. This patch made what was already very challenging virtually impossible.

    I'll keep asking the same question: What's the point of the 10+ civs that are built for early aggression with early UUs, if the game doesn't allow for early aggression? If you think this is intended and balanced, you might as well remove those civs. Shaka, Rome, Huns, Mongolia, Assyria, Aztecs, etc. etc.

    Someone else made the excellent point that if this is how early aggression is handled (even in self-defense) then the only effective way to play with early UUs is pillaging and farming XP off your neighbors without ever taking cities. And the HUGE irony of that is that there is NO diplomatic repercussion for subjugating your neighbor like that... not after the Initial DoW, which wears off in like 50 turns. So, pillaging and burning and killing off your neighbor's units for 1000 years is A-OK, just don't take a city... Right. Especially don't take it again 2 turns later if they recapture, because that's the equivalent of capturing 2 cities.

    This is teh broken, folks. You can sugarcoat it all you like with fancy justifications, but it ain't right.

    I think I might just take a break from civ until they address this.
  6. Cromagnus

    Cromagnus Deity

    Sep 11, 2012
    I'm fairly convinced from playing a lot of games post-patch that the AI doesn't handle AI aggression the same way. It may be a simple matter of strength evaluation though. On Deity the player is usually the lowest score, and technically has the weakest military, early on anyway.

    SO, the AI may simply be saying "I can't afford to denounce or DoW this guy for his aggression" when the AI does it. I can't say for certain because I haven't played below Deity since the patch. I suspect it's got more to do with the player being treated differently. Iit's probably both. :p
  7. Cromagnus

    Cromagnus Deity

    Sep 11, 2012
    I think the Venice game was a bad example, Tabarnak. I've had numerous games since then where I was immediately DoW'd for taking cities, even when I took them in a counterstrike when someone else DoW'd me. Yes, I had stolen a worker and made peace, which was a mistake, but that's not the reason I got punished. I've been DoW'd for taking one city from an existing warmonger who had captured cities from someone else. Even when the AI has more cities than I do, I seem to get punished. I'll have to go back to the old "tech to artillery" style domination and see what it's like, maybe it's different if you do it that way. I just coincidentally have been playing exclusively with early war since before the patch. (Hence I've noticed a more dramatic difference than most)
  8. Civsassin

    Civsassin Immortal

    Nov 13, 2007
    Virginia Beach
    Remember that the warmonger penalty is reduced for civs that are at war with the same enemy. This alliance can keep you in good standing with those civs. This is exactly the case in my current game during which Japan went to war with me multiple times, and we remained friends even though I eliminated one civ and crippled two more. All of the other civs though remained hostile or guarded, and I was denounced repeatedly.
  9. bbbt

    bbbt Emperor

    Oct 21, 2013
    I'm not sure it's only the warmonger penalty. I believe they also lowered the cap for how much bigger the AI's army needs to be than an opponents before it declares war. So they are going to be more willing to declare war in the beginning of deity, when of course they have a bigger army.

    Honestly, it seems ridiculous to complain that the hardest level is too difficult and 'unbalanced', especially in the early years, when the AI starts with a big advantage. It's like complaining that you can't get the great library or religion on deity. That's why it's the hardest level, the AI has a massive head start (to compensate for not being nearly as good as a human player). If it's not fun, go down to an easier level, don't complain that it's too hard for you.
  10. goremand

    goremand Chieftain

    Oct 26, 2013
    I really hope you're wrong, the AI should treat should treat a human no different from any other opponent. If the AI forgive each other and hate only humans it's a huge design flaw.
  11. TLHeart

    TLHeart King

    Oct 15, 2005
    The AI won't Dow a civ that is stronger than them, so no they won't Dow Assyria. But they will Dow you since your 4 to 6 man army is weak to them. That is the mechanics of the game, and since the AI gets a huge advantage on deity, you will always be the weaker civ.

    Again, to be a warmonger, on must be self sufficient. One can not depend on trade routes with other civs. I only declare war once per civilization. I will not make peace. A major penalty for warmongering is only the second step, minor, major, extreme, and critical.

    In my current Pangea game I have only Brazil left to cap his capital. I played with 10 ais on a standard map. I have only eliminated 1 civ, the celts. I am currently trading with Russia, England, and nebby, for 3 gpt for my luxs.

    I have Xbows, maxed out on promotions, 4 in the strike force, a medic2, cover2 musketman, a pikeman medic2, and a GG. Brazil now has Gatling guns, and musketman. Going to be a ruff fight, and I am lagging in science. And Brazil has the Great Wall, jungle.

    I have not experienced the massive dow's that cromagnus has. Total cities captured, 15, razed 5.

    Don't know what makes the difference.
  12. Moriarte

    Moriarte Immortal

    May 10, 2012
    Dunno about justifications, but i just won t.249 deity domination on standard Pangaea.

    Snowballed to #1 world military before turn 200 and all they did is threw insults in my face. No one dared do DoW, while i cleansed the landmass. Didn't notice any difference from pre patch.

    Spoiler :

    Spoiler :

    EDIT: Going to play huge map next. ;)
  13. Glassmage

    Glassmage The Desert Flame

    Apr 23, 2011
    yea patch made it impossible to regain Friendly status with AI's when kill 1 city state. doesn't matter what the warmonger diplo message say, always get denounced
  14. householder

    householder Lord of the Fleas

    Mar 24, 2008
    I think you may be right, but the converse is also true. The AI civs will be reluctant to denounce or DOW you if you are stronger than they are. I have found I can get away with more conquests, without repercussions, when I am the dominant power.

    At Deity level, being the dominant military takes longer to achieve. So I can see where this would make early warmongering more difficult.

    This is a little off-topic, but the Soviet Union and Germany began World War II as somewhat allies. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an infamous agreement to divide Europe into zones of control. Germany and the USSR both invaded Poland, seizing what they agreed upon.

    The USSR didn't side with Britain and France until Germany invaded the Soviet Union, in what we would call a backstab.

    Attached Files:

  15. Pembroke

    Pembroke Tribune

    Jul 1, 2002
    No, you misunderstood me. The friendship-trade block you ought to have aimed for from the beginning should have included Venice and excluded one of the others. The AI just compares numbers and makes moves. It only gives an illusion of planning. You are the only one in the game that has the capability of making long term strategic planning. The AI "understands" only the now and even that is just comparisons of modifiers that can be tilted this way or that by acting accordingly. The AI civs are predictable idiots, so take advantage of that and turn the numbers game against them. Leverage your own bonuses and make others take the penalties in the diplomatic field. The AI doesn't understand the consequences of its actions and how it affects the dynamics in the future turns.

    Sure you can. Simply let someone take Venice first and then snatch it, or just wait until it has more cities. The AI doesn't think "You kill Venice, you are bad". Instead, the code simply calculates how many cities your opponent has left after you take a city and applies an increasing penalty. The solution is to account for this and make war so that the numbers favor you and penalize the others.

    Or, that you are trying to wage war the same way you were accustomed to before and not adjusting. It's a game and it follows a set of rules. You play the game by creating and following a strategy that takes the best advantage of those rules.

    So, don't fight the rules. Make them work for you. Much easier that way. :)
  16. player1 fanatic

    player1 fanatic Fanatic

    Mar 19, 2002
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Does the warmongering penalty apply to AI too? Yes it does.

    Note that for biggest effect AI needs to take cities of small civ. And late game warring is less penalizing then early one, since total number of cities on map is part of equation.

    This can lead to AI denouncing each other, destroying relations between them forever.
  17. Maxym

    Maxym King

    Feb 20, 2011
    Not sure about that, but I got a former ally who denounced me and went all the way to hostile go back to being friends. Fake friends as he won't pay full price but gave me OB for OB. All it took was a thousand years and a Dow on him from our mutual neighbor whom I bribed into it. ;)

    I think you will like the huge map Moriarte, I think larger maps with abundant lux might be the answer to this joke of a patch. AIs will settle lots of cities and you can take early ones then, maybe even genocide. Is it that Europe map perhaps?

    I am not a fan of the way new WPenaltes work but to be a bit of devils advocate, you not only DoWed twice and genocide, but also changed the balance of power. Removing a pariah nation before your friends had a chance to denounce him. I would have paid them to DoW Venice too or at least hit them to agree to cooperate in war.

    It's ridiculous how many hoops you ave to jump through now to have an early war of conquest.

    Allow me to repost from another thread:

    There were always penalties for conquering CS and there should be, it's just that now they are ridiculous. Not being able to deal with a pesky CS by military means detracts from strategic gameplay.

    The existing penalties before the patch: a major warmonger hit after one infraction and decrease in resting point after second infraction folllowed by all out war with CSs for continued aggression were enough to discourage a strategy of praying on the weakest.

    AIs still did that and will do that after the patch, but human players rarely did, and never twice ;) the existing system worked for protecting CS while allowing players numerous strategies including conquest of key CS ally of your opponent, a source of vital strategic resource or geographical or political obstacle.

    The way it is now, the gameplay options became more limited and the game poorer for it and less strategic.

    People will find ways around the current implementation of warmonger penalties, most already did I am sure. I know I did, and I only played a third of a game with the new rules. After even my friend, and ally, William denounced me after taking my third city from Polynesia in Medieval/Rennaisance era despite the fact we were at war with Egypt at the time and at his insistence. Trading both through trade routes and lux exchange, no borders tension or any negative modifiers in fact, just the warmonger hate.

    The war against Poly was to break out from the complete encirclement he achieved by forward settling me on t7 and spreading like a weed. This is the current deity England challenge, btw. I have no problem with the general mechanic, this is what we have so let's make it work. And it actually worked well until now. The increasing weariness of other leaders culminating in a mass DoW if a large number of caps were in player hands was great and a very welcome change to the previous AI responses which did not scale well with growing threat of player winning domination.

    But what we have now is not a good design, limiting players to peaceful trade and teching as the only viable options until later era's arty or bomber rushes which can be done quickly to minimize the fallout. What a sorry way to rob us of the possible ways of winning the game. And to remove the most challenging and fun period of warfare, the one without long range weapons that can't be countered by AI.

    I think what we had until this patch was a well scaled AI response to warmonger threats, what was needed was increase in AI propensity for early war and increase in it's war readiness (more units) and greater use of cooperative DoWs which are about the only thing that can threaten a competent human player.

    The current implementation of warmonger penalties will lead to permawar with one CS to farm workers and XP, keeping defeated civs in zombie like state with endless pillaging of improvements and XP farming, while waiting to time city captures with ebb and flow of warmonger hate. Or early hermit kingdoms to exploit the window of opportunity of not knowing other civs. And that's just for those who won't abandon early warring for the all encompassing strategy of four city tradition to their preferred VC ie:
    Heavy science to labs and Hubble for SV
    Heavy science to labs and Info age for Diplo
    Heavy science to labs to Internet for CV
    Heavy science to Arty or labs to Bombers or Stealth for Domination.

    This game has already suffered from a paucity of alternative routes to quick victory times, we don't need to limit those routes more. Sure you can win in different ways if you take your time, but it's not the same as having competing viable strategies. The only comparable strategy using a very different approach is the Sacred Sites liberty ICS for quick CV on lower levels, and this has been so pilloried that I am afraid we won't have it around much longer.

    I hope the current warmonger penalties will be rescaled to facilitate more varied approaches to early game. The pre-patch was actually working well, with the dreaded CB rush deemphasized by the benefits of trade routes, and heavier emphasis on positive diplomacy as a route to profitable lux trades with friends. The trades themselves were too profitable, what's the point of having a revenue stream if you can trade it for cash in hand without any cost. The return of "interest" solves that problem. The increased AI flavor for early war should solve the early game SimCiv and keep players on their toes.

    The numerous CiVs with early UU or war related UA should be allowed to take full advantage of them. Early wars should remain a viable strategy while unchecked early expansion through war should be penalized by exponentially increasing hostile response from AI. It's just that taking three cities from an opponent should not be the point where a possibility of cooperation with even friendly and allied AIs breaks down. Sure friends of your victim should take dim view of your actions and respond. But your friends should be mostly unconcerned at this point. If you continue in that vein, yes they too should start to shun you and try to stop you. But taking few cities or God forbid ONE CS should not be game breaking.

    Just to provide a bit of context to my example a later screen, i am missing the breakout one on t 105 when i started the LB rush. Note the Zombie city of Nuku Hiva kept artifficially alive while I ingratiate myself with the other continent:

    Spoiler :
  18. Dogmouth

    Dogmouth King

    Mar 19, 2012
    I don't think domination games have changed much. You were hated (but feared) before the patch; and you're hated (but feared) now.

    The change mostly affects non-domination when you're doing a little warring to keep things interesting or to give yourself, pardon the word, a little *lebensraum*.

    The OP's example was probably not a great one, because trashing Venice in two successive wars of aggression is fairly warmongery no matter the definition.
  19. Cromagnus

    Cromagnus Deity

    Sep 11, 2012
    When did you start warring?
  20. KillingMeSoftly

    KillingMeSoftly Warlord

    Sep 11, 2011
    I recently won a game as Germany where something like this happened. However I was so behind that conquering someone was the only way to dig myself out of the grave. It surprised me as well when I totally conquered Ethiopia that all of my neighbors declared war with me or immediately became hostile (and later declared war).

    This is just how things are now. If you're going for Domination victory, be prepared for all-out war. You plan to conquer the whole world (or at least everyone's capital), so it's reasonable to expect true world wars to unfold. By chasing Domination, you are following in the foot steps of Rome, Napoleon, Germany, etc. We all know what happened to them.

    From a purely game-play perspective, it also makes sense that your friends are now your enemies. By taking a capital (and so early), it becomes clear that you're striving for a Domination victory-- which means eventually you will be at war with your "friends" at some point. The logic behind their decision is sound when you consider this. If you didn't want to win a Domination victory, then why take Venice thus eliminating them completely?

    My advice is to be prepared. Be self sufficient-- diplomacy with city-states is much easier to manage and they remain trade partners so long as you don't let your enemies ally them.. Patronage is surprisingly effective for warmongers due to needing trade routes. Don't let your enemies burn all of your bridges around you and then who cares how many enemies you have?

Share This Page