War after the fall patch

[Txurce]

I think those chain DOW's are probably the biggest unbalancing element of the game. The devs should probably just consider altogether removing the warmonger points for denouncements received, because I think what happens when you take a city or two, is that it makes the mushes who hate warmongering denounce almost immediately, and when they do that the warmonger points they add to your point pool then causes you to pass the threshold that others would consider denouncing you, and so they then denounce you and which causes the points to accumulate exponentially to the point where they all want to DOW and then you find yourself in a world war. But it they removed the points for denouncements and just applied for DOW and city captures, it would probably be a bit less drastic and more balanced and just based on your actions, which you can control, and not on the irrational logic of the AI.

That's an interesting suggestion. I'm not sure exactly how the points are apportioned, but this is a relatively mild buff (as it should be).

 

[Polisurgist]

I think those chain DOW's are probably the biggest unbalancing element of the game. The devs should probably just consider altogether removing the warmonger points for denouncements received, because I think what happens when you take a city or two, is that it makes the mushes who hate warmongering denounce almost immediately, and when they do that the warmonger points they add to your point pool then causes you to pass the threshold that others would consider denouncing you, and so they then denounce you and which causes the points to accumulate exponentially to the point where they all want to DOW and then you find yourself in a world war. But it they removed the points for denouncements and just applied for DOW and city captures, it would probably be a bit less drastic and more balanced and just based on your actions, which you can control, and not on the irrational logic of the AI.

You're pretty much right that it's chain denouncements and not the warmonger penalty that's the biggest culprit here (at least, the biggest culprit in making these things last for the entire game). My suggestion for this was to have the diplomatic weight of a denouncement decay over time; you might end up with half the world denouncing you when you do something really egregious, which I think is fine, but that round of denouncements won't end up kicking off a second (and third, and fourth, and infinite) round once they expire.

The other idea could be to taper off the weight of certain types of diplomatic influence. So having a second civ denounce you is considerably worse than having just one do it, but the seventh isn't that much more than the sixth. Basically, taper this the way tech and cultural progress gets tapered.

 

[bcaiko]

I think the OP has, at this point, acknowledged that his Venice game is not the best example of the problem he's identifying. Cromagnus not only took a capital from a Civ, but its only city - and the AI has NEVER liked another Civ being wiped out. Cromagnus should have at least brought either Hiawatha or William with him to war, and the Cromagnus could easily have verified that Venice only had one city (through the trading screen, under "cities").

Still, I understand Cromagnus' point: the warmonger penalty is a little too harsh (and it should be harsh!). The fact that Hiawatha, of all people, was mortified by someone else's warmongering, speaks some volumes. (He'll of course change his mind the minute he has Mohawks.) Cromagnus' actions should have had negative consequences, but those consequences should have been mollified somewhat by the fact that Cromagnus was on very good terms with Hiawatha and William and everyone hated Venice.

Cromagnus might have deserved those denouncements from his friends, but the chain of backstabbing DoWs that followed...Well, I understand why Cromagnus would feel the need to vent. It's a problem that your friends can turn on you so quickly, and the fact that such large warmongering penalties linger so long will also snowball negatives for the rest of your game. (IMHO, early warmongering should be forgiven more quickly than mid or late game warmongering.)

Assyria DoW's Portugal, and captures one of her 3 cities.

Here's where it starts to get BS. NO ONE DENOUNCES.

Excuse me? What happened to auto-denounce, auto-DoW? Only for the player? Oh I see.

Taking 1 out of cities 3 cities will only incur a minor warmonger penalty (compared to, say, the major warmonger penalty of taking a Civ's only city). This isn't denounceable to most Civs, but it might irritate them.

Everyone loves me right? Wrong. No one but Portugal appreciates the liberation.

KOREA AND CHINA THINK I'M A WARMONGER. Excuse me? Well, at least they didn't denounce.

Yeah, a liberation shouldn't incur a warmonger penalty at all, IMHO.

China Denounces me. Arabia backstab denounces me. On the next turn, Assyria takes back his city because he had two siege towers out of view behind the city and hills.

I also agree this is a problem under the new system. If a city is rapidly changing hands (horrible under any circumstance), the warmonger penalty needs to be waylayed.

Maybe Montezuma is troubled that Oda isn't providing his citizens an adequate social safety net in 800 B.C. as well?

AIs trying to stop a run away is always good. Only problem the wars never stop until I have up, on turn 300. I had at least 2 frontline at all time and could barely trade with anyone. It was fun to overcome adversity but this went a little too far in my opinion. What would you have me do differently?

Should a 10 turn war turn 60 should doom me for te next 250 turn?

I've been the victim of this too, and it really does ruin a game. I was in the middle of a snake-like continent, surrounded by city states, with Portugal and Indonesia on either end. I took one of the City-States, needing the only Iron nearby that was in their territory, and there were few viable spots to settle. I made mistakes, admittedly, but the result of Indonesia and Portugal bouncing me between wars the rest of the game (when I made peace with one or got the upper hand, the other would immediately DoW) forced me to wipe them both out so they would finally fricking stop.

Warmonger penalties need to die down much quicker in the early game than they do.

The best fix would be a Casus Belli system...

Everyone wants this, Firaxis.

 

[El Caballerion]

Title says it all...

I dislike how the game notifies you that you'll get a WARMONGER penalty if you capture a city (CS's mostly) during a war where you are a defender (i.e., YOU get DOWed).

It's a broken system. How can I be a 'warmonger' if I have not declared war????

Instead of becoming a warmonger by capturing cities during a defensive war, there should be NO warmonger penalty. Instead, other Civs should grow AFRAID of you.

Thoughts?

 

[Dralix]

Once you capture a city, you're not defending anymore.

EDIT:

Not to mention how easy that would make it to game the system.

 

[arand86]

Civs shouldn't be afraid of you just for conquering cities while being DoW'd.

But I think most of us agree that there shouldn't be a warmonger penalty if you didn't instigate war.

 

[joshua43214]

hmmm,
just a couple weeks ago every one was bending over backwards to tell Firaxis what a wonderful job they did with the patch, now there seems to be a new "warmongering is broken" thread everyday...

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Maybe one freebie then a double penalty for the second? You'd take the same hit in the long run if you continue to take cities but it'd allow you to clear out an aggressive and dangerous settlement.

I do think the warmongering penalties are better after the patch though.

 

[holywar]

Only if you are recapturing your own city should the penalty go away. Otherwise, warmongering players would be able to lure civs into a DoW and then never make peace with them until they have become the aggressor and taken their land.

But I do like Vic's idea. Sometimes war is necessary to keep a civ from encroaching on your territory. There should be no warmonger penalty for that. Would be hard to implement though. You are probably better off keeping settlers off your land.

 

[Johnpecan]

I partly agree with the OP. I believe the penalty should be less severe if you were DoW'd compared to if you declared war yourself. If the penalty was taken away entirely you could just taunt/demand piss of civs until they DoW you and could be abused.

 

[Dralix]

Maybe one freebie then a double penalty for the second? You'd take the same hit in the long run if you continue to take cities but it'd allow you to clear out an aggressive and dangerous settlement.

If this was implemented, I would hope it did not apply to the capital. That is, taking the capital should not be free.

 

[pthieu1986]

Once you capture a city, you're not defending anymore.

I don't totally agree with this conception. Sir Alex Ferguson says that attacking is the best defensive strategy. Why is it wrong when you take cities of those who threaten your existence as a 'war compensation'?

 

[HerrDoktor]

Warmonger penalty should not be a fixed rule for every single civ. It's very artificial. Capturing cities has the same effect, no matter which is the civ in question. If your enemy was world's public enemy #1, crushing him shouldn't have the same consequences as genociding that pretty tiny flower power nation who was friends with the whole world. In the game, it's like France and Poland would denounce USA, Britain and USSR for capturing Berlin from Hitler.

 

[bcaiko]

In the game, it's like France and Poland would denounce USA, Britain and USSR for capturing Berlin from Hitler.

Except they (mostly) gave Berlin back to Germany. There's no incentive to give back capitals (or cities in general) back to another player in Civ5.

 

[Dralix]

Except they (mostly) gave Berlin back to Germany.

You mean mostly, except for the USSR making a puppet of East Berlin, and being denounced for it?

There's no incentive to give back capitals (or cities in general) back to another player in Civ5.

Some people don't seem to realize they're playing a game.

 

[GhostSalsa]

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.

Thank you. Hearing these invocations of moral logic from the peaceniks on this thread is sickening. The AI are all scoundrels. They always have been. Even the ones with the highest warmonger-dislike values will attack you for weakness. There is no logic and no morality that can make their negative reactions to slight early warmongering reasonable, so stop it. The AI is scum.

The only AI behaviors that made the game tolerable in this amoral backdrop were loyalty and pragmatism - where in G&K, certain Civs would trade and be friends with you anyway because there was profit. No it wasn't in their long-term self interest vis-à-vis preventing a "player victory," but it made the game playable. You could blend exciting early conquest with mid-game economic growth to enter the late-game with open options and keep things interesting. Now there is only one path. Tech until artillery and then mop up the map.

Peaceniks: Don't defend the logic of the current one path if you can't identify and describe any other paths. One-path play is not acceptable. Don't defend it.

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.

Right, the logic of anti-conquering is inherently twisted. Pragmatically, conquering is necessary to bring an end to wars, especially the ones that strong AI neighbors instigate on you. Suing for peace only leads to constant revival of the same war.

In BNW just as with Vanilla, what the peace-loving AIs are actually judging is not your warmongering but your success. Peace-loving AI's are constantly declaring war on the player out of jealousy. It doesn't matter if there are different historical diplomatic analogies employed on the modifier labels ("considers you a threat to the world.") The experience for the player is "Gandhi just declared war on me for making the continent safer."

The experience for the player is: AI logic is a joke.

The experience for the player is: Diplomacy is a joke.

The experience for the player is: I can't exploit UUs and get the most out of game options.

The player wants a game that isn't infuriating.

 

[El Caballerion]

It's just bizarre. For instance, in one game, China declared war, alongside its allied state Vilinius.

Now, Vilinius was only a few tiles from my capital, meaning that it should rightfully be in my empire. However, Beijing (a la, the Chinese Capital) was pretty far away. However, if I had taken Beijing, I would have gotten a MINOR WM penalty... if I had taken Vilinius, I would have gotten an EXTREME WM penalty! A CAPITAL city has less penalty than a CS!??? No sense!

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

It's just bizarre. For instance, in one game, China declared war, alongside its allied state Vilinius.

Now, Vilinius was only a few tiles from my capital, meaning that it should rightfully be in my empire. However, Beijing (a la, the Chinese Capital) was pretty far away. However, if I had taken Beijing, I would have gotten a MINOR WM penalty... if I had taken Vilinius, I would have gotten an EXTREME WM penalty! A CAPITAL city has less penalty than a CS!??? No sense!

Yeah I don't like the extreme penalties for taking out CS allies of an aggressor. I don't like the fact that your forced to leave a hostile front alone like that or face global disapproval. CSs can be a real nuisance on higher difficulties. I think if they're drawn into a war by a major civ it should carry the same warmonger penalty as any of their ally's cities.

 

[Quineloe]

Except they (mostly) gave Berlin back to Germany. There's no incentive to give back capitals (or cities in general) back to another player in Civ5.

Revive a Civ and they will vote for you for world leader

 

[Byzantine Bomb]

Holywar's idea is a decent compromise. Little to no penalty after the first city or two but after taking several cities when the aggressor has clearly been beaten, the penalty should become normal once more.