warmonger- how do you know?

[trev1972]

Hi All

Just wondering if anyone has had this happen to them, as it has me puzzled.

I started a new game last night, rome continents.

I started fairly isolated, just me and the russians on a landmass seperated by ocean from the main continent.

I wiped them out VERY early, way before cartography, basically i went straight to iron working, got my legions out and wiped them out

Roll forward a good few turns, and i make first contact with the new continent, among them ghandi- who amazingly is 'upset with my warmongering', and of course started a cycle of declaring every 30 or so turns.

How on earth would he know? he was an ocean away and there was no russian civilization to tell about it.

I know we shouldnt think of the AI in human terms but it seemed...odd, has anyone else had it

 

[trev1972]

Thanks, i guess from your post it wasnt a one off, just the way the AI works, ive never had such an isolated start coupled with early war before so hadnt realized.

It was a wierd game, at one point everyone in the world declared on me (id got 17 cities so decided on science) and cleo was chastising my military despite it being the largest in the world..and then immediately asking for friendship ow well fingers crossed diplomacy is looked at in the expansion

 

[Zdarg]

I believe Civ5 didn't behave this way.

It did.
Same problem, wiped England early, was treated as warmonger by civs I met much later.

 

[Kyro]

Suppose it is odd, why shouldn't the world hate you for wiping out another Civilization?

There should be a reasonable penalty in proportion to the huge profit you just acquired. And getting hated by the world isn't actually penalizing.

How would you propose players pay the right price for the advantage they acquired through minimal time and investment?

I think what the developers did wasn't penalty enough and letting warmongering go completely free just because it doesn't make sense to the advantage of the player isn't being fair. They already aren't being fair enough.

 

[trev1972]

Suppose it is odd, why shouldn't the world hate you for wiping out another Civilization?

There should be a reasonable penalty in proportion to the huge profit you just acquired. And getting hated by the world isn't actually penalizing.

How would you propose players pay the right price for the advantage they acquired through minimal time and investment?

I think what the developers did wasn't penalty enough and letting warmongering go completely free just because it doesn't make sense to the advantage of the player isn't being fair. They already aren't being fair enough.

Hey kyro

My problem isnt with the severity of the warmongering penalty, just the fact that no-one on the other continent could have known about it?

 

[Kyro]

Hey kyro

My problem isnt with the severity of the warmongering penalty, just the fact that no-one on the other continent could have known about it?

I totally understand your issue. I'm just presenting to you the ramifications of AI players not knowing about your warmongering and therefore not hating you for it.

Option A: They can't know so they can't hate you. Player gets away with free warmongering.

Option B: They know even though they can't. Warmongering "Penalty" applies.

Option A makes far less sense than Option B because it does away with penalties altogether. Which stems from the same basis of your question, "It doesn't make sense".

If option A is true then it means players can have an excuse to avoid penalties and that simply won't do.

Also each turn in Civilization takes decades it's not surprisingly they found out about what you did the very next turn given that there exists no language barrier in the game.

 

[rambow13]

Warmongering penalties should not be incurred with Civs you have not met yet during the war. Especially if both civs involved in the war have not met the other civ, there there is no way there should be a penalty.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Gandhi maphacks as with the rest of the agendas. It's pretty dull.

This is just blatantly cheating in order to throw the game. I mean all denouncing really does is just give you a CB without having to wait.

Indirectly, because conflicts happen between neighbors, what happens is that all AIs inevitably hate each other and you know what they say about divide and conquer.

There should be a reasonable penalty in proportion to the huge profit you just acquired. And getting hated by the world isn't actually penalizing.

How would you propose players pay the right price for the advantage they acquired through minimal time and investment?

That's already been thought of, and that is city occupation penalties and that persist even before the war ends. This worked in previous incarnations of Civ, so that conquered cities don't just worked as well as ones you founded. But the loyalty mechanic may play a role in the expansion.

Of course, none of this really relates to the actual topic at hand, which is that the AI and the game is cheating. And not just cheating, but also in a way that hurts their own self preservation. And 2 wrongs don't make a wrong btw.

 

[Josephias]

Unless you have performed a complete ethnical cleanising (and even in that case), there wold be always echoes of the barbarian thongs that you have done: ruins, refugees hiding somewere, slaves, military pride on your army, disgrunted intelectuals blaming the sins of the past,... Option B is not as nonsensical as you think.
If a civilization just "meets" you it wouldn't know, but you have to think this meeting is comprising some research on you wich may show these signs you are a people to be wary about.

If warmongering penalty fades with time, (need to confirm, tough), they won't treat you as a full warmonger nevertheless whend they find you (and, if they find you a la Asoka, with a burning city behind, what did you expect?, even if they didn't know who this city was from, you're a warmonger by all means).
Maybe in a next diplomacy-focused expansion (world congress is still missing), there could be a counterintelligence/propaga

 

[Archon_Wing]

What research and intellectuals though, especially in the ancient era? What refugees are going to make it across landmasses when boats have barely been invented? How many atrocities have been covered up to this very day through propaganda?

I mean it was not until recently that we realized that the Neanderthals were not just savages, and it is very likely we killed them off.

History is written by the victors, after all.

Oh, and what about the Barbarians you wipe out too? If you think about it, there's little difference between the civ you wipe out in 2000 BC and those guys too.

 

[Scaramanga]

You occupy a foreign capital. I believe everyone can know this by looking at the Domination victory screen.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Now that, I think I'm willing to settle for.

Though this is accounted for via "we are winning" if you own enough capitals.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Had I not seen it so many times, the idea that maphacking is okay is kind of unbelievable. Then again, it's an idiotic mechanic in the first place.

Why? Because it puts more weight on whether someone took cities than it does on who is the biggest threat to win. It literally incentivizes the AI to operate on motivations that are not consistent with a victory condition.

This is a game, and despite that AI opponents are programmed to throw it. A 4 city civ that takes 4 cities is not a greater threat to win than a 15 city civ that's further ahead, regardless of how the latter got to 15. The AI doesn't see it that way, and that makes the AI's logic on this matter fundamentally broken. They're playing a different game than the player is, despite allegedly having the same rules.

I don't care that this has been the case in every Civ game. It's a serious design flaw. If you want players to play a different game, make the rules reflect the kind of game you want to see. Programming opponents to not play the game is sloppy, and it makes a bad tactical AI arguably even more pathetic in the macro sense.

 

[Kyro]

Of course, none of this really relates to the actual topic at hand, which is that the AI and the game is cheating. And not just cheating, but also in a way that hurts their own self preservation. And 2 wrongs don't make a wrong btw.

Well it kinda shows on the victory screen/UI? Thus I assumed this post wasn't related to the topic of map hacking/cheating but the topic of how sensible it is that the AI is able to find out, realistically speaking.

What research and intellectuals though, especially in the ancient era? What refugees are going to make it across landmasses when boats have barely been invented? How many atrocities have been covered up to this very day through propaganda?

I mean it was not until recently that we realized that the Neanderthals were not just savages, and it is very likely we killed them off.

History is written by the victors, after all.

Oh, and what about the Barbarians you wipe out too? If you think about it, there's little difference between the civ you wipe out in 2000 BC and those guys too.

Interesting that you should say that when you would avoid being friendly with a player if you found out he was a warmongering snowball. You would do everything in your power to curb his, and all the AI can do at this time is denounce you.

This question remains unanswered: Why should the player be able to eliminate an opponent without diplomatic consequences?

The question is relevant because that's what you end up with if the game doesn't "cheat" to know what you did. You can't just fix one problem and create another.

The penalty takes precedence as an enforcer of game rules, not excuses in the name of logic. If the game must cheat to enforce them, then it must.

Not saying it is an elegant solution, but sometimes compromise isn't possible.

 

[Josephias]

What research and intellectuals though, especially in the ancient era? What refugees are going to make it across landmasses when boats have barely been invented? How many atrocities have been covered up to this very day through propaganda?

I mean it was not until recently that we realized that the Neanderthals were not just savages, and it is very likely we killed them off.

History is written by the victors, after all.

Oh, and what about the Barbarians you wipe out too? If you think about it, there's little difference between the civ you wipe out in 2000 BC and those guys too.

You mean, there is no oral traditions recovered in the works of ancient historians?, there is no way to get a little glimpse about what is Greek's opinion of war by being told about the Ilyad?, that the warmonger picture we have of Monty is not because the Spanish reported, when reaching Aztec lands, several minor populations were willing to "use" them (or willing to be "used", depending on how you see it), to overthrow him - they couldn't be considered a "living civ" at that time, considering Civ Scale (refugees do not need to cross seas - as said before, you just find them "hidding" in zones of your landmass your civ "blob" does not cover still (or -in minor percentage-, even inside it). Maybe enslaved populations of different ethnicity or language came from nowere?. And, as comented in my last sentence, propaganda may be a counter, but it is still not implemented in game, and has to be effective (and, If we know there has been propaganda, is because we revealed the truth from other hints, or because there has been counter-propaganda"

We did not know about neanderthals because we did not care about them, or about the tribe confronting them, because we are not relating to either (Neanderthals are gone, Sapiens are we, so we don't see us as "other people" we need to underestand). Of course, our interpretation of what happened will not be 100% accurate... but neither is when they see decide on your warmongering because of just 4-5 standard types of casus belli.

And last this:

"You occupy a foreign capital. I believe everyone can know this by looking at the Domination victory screen."]

Now that, I think I'm willing to settle for.

Though this is accounted for via "we are winning" if you own enough capitals.

So, they can't know you wiped a civ because you are under the FoW, but they have a "magical mirror" that tells them you occupy a foreign capitol (How do they know this city was not founded by you in first place?... because the great god UI exists, I think...


That leads me to:

When we are talking about realism?. Are we talking about it in game terms or in history simulation terms?.

If it is "the computer hacks the rules" I might underestand (tough I argue the "warmonger" counter for each civ should be available in the UI - and i think it is not because, 1) nevertheless, we don't care, and 2) we know already who are the warmonger civs.

If it is "history simulation", we enter the ... "we have o10,000 square kilometers area cities" discussion... you cannot claim nobody else has seen you because there were only you and Peter. There can be much more "minor" people not worth representing in the game because they are not relevant to the major game. You cannot confirm that none of the russian "tribes" has survived (even within you people) passing out traditions on how they were a free people and then were butchered by the current rulers (Bible comes to mind, don't know why... ). Of course you don't "see" them in the game board or the city screen because they are irrelevant on the "scale" you are playing, but there can be hints of them somewere, and the fact other civs know about your warmongering is one of these hints.

Realism and gameplay must be balanced out. The poster talking about Option A and Option B explained well why Option B makes most gameplay sense, and the game symbolic nature is the reson why you cannot discard Option B as unrealistic. (As commented, Option B it is as Unrealistic as a polder covering the full bay of biscay, and we are more or less fine with this second).

Ah... and barbarians do not grant you warmongering because its symbolism (camps instead of cities) means they have not an organized nor a common view of themselves as a "disctintive" group of people... so they are not going to mourn the loss of their status if conquered.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well it kinda shows on the victory screen/UI?

Capitals yes. That is not how the mechanics work though. Gandhi detects you warmongering even if you don't capture anything. Including if they forward settle you and you had to stop it.

Thus I assumed this post wasn't related to the topic of map hacking/cheating but the topic of how sensible it is that the AI is able to find out, realistically speaking.

A faulty assumption as a result. But we're discussing both anyways.

Interesting that you should say that when you would avoid being friendly with a player if you found out he was a warmongering snowball.

If he were a warmongering snowball...... What if he wasn't. What if they're just 2 rivals fighting over some land I don't care about. Unless they can threaten me, I don't care.

You would do everything in your power to curb his, and all the AI can do at this time is denounce you.

You know what I wouldn't do? Piss them off when I don't have the capacity to fight back yet. Because that's stupid. This is why "Guarded" was a good thing in Civ V.

And also if we're going through this as a game. If I can win first and simply defend the land, and that sometimes happens, I'd rather just win like that.

This question remains unanswered: Why should the player be able to eliminate an opponent without diplomatic consequences?

That wasn't the topic. Which is why it goes unanswered. And if people see it, you do get penalized. If nobody knows you, you don't. But sometimes. That's why it's inconsistent. They know sometimes, but not others, with little rhyme or reason.

The penalty takes precedence as an enforcer of game rules, not excuses in the name of logic. If the game must cheat to enforce them, then it must.

Ah, throwing more trains to fix a trainwreck. That's certainly not worth complaining about.

Not saying it is an elegant solution, but sometimes compromise isn't possible.

Blatantly disingenuous in this case.

You mean, there is no oral traditions recovered in the works of ancient historians?, there is no way to get a little glimpse about what is Greek's opinion of war by being told about the Ilyad?

Sure, but denouncing people over mythology sounds sketchy.

that the warmonger picture we have of Monty is not because the Spanish reported, when reaching Aztec lands, several minor populations were willing to "use" them (or willing to be "used", depending on how you see it), to overthrow him - they couldn't be considered a "living civ" at that time, considering Civ Scale (refugees do not need to cross seas - as said before, you just find them "hidding" in zones of your landmass your civ "blob" does not cover still (or -in minor percentage-, even inside it). Maybe enslaved populations of different ethnicity or language came from nowere?

But what about Spain's warmongering there, when they're basically the ones that control the information when they had every incentive to lie and justify their conquests? Heck, if Spain got denounced, it was for them getting there first since every major power decided colonization was a good idea.

When we are talking about realism?. Are we talking about it in game terms or in history simulation terms?.

Uhh, well, that poster wanted to talk about it from a gameplay perspective, so I went as such. You were talking about it from a realism point so I talked about with you as such. It's simply to entertain your point so we don't get too bored.

If it is "the computer hacks the rules" I might underestand (tough I argue the "warmonger" counter for each civ should be available in the UI - and i think it is not because, 1) nevertheless, we don't care, and 2) we know already who are the warmonger civs.

Well if you want to put it like this, then I think the goal is for the AI to recognize a threat. Problem is that it doesn't. It just causes the AIs to hate each other and ultimately screw themselves over. Remember, it's not just about player warmongering. They do this to each other too.

Incidentially, the matter at hand is neither a strict gameplay mechanic or realism issue. This is because we're talking about agendas which is bascially the computer player roleplaying.

Ah... and barbarians do not grant you warmongering because its symbolism (camps instead of cities) means they have not an organized nor a common view of themselves as a "disctintive" group of people... so they are not going to mourn the loss of their status if conquered.

How convenient. That's why I sometimes snicker at people claiming they are pacifist but gleefully destroy barbarians on the flimsy reason they need more space. And yes, by design, it's meant to make you feel better.

 

[Kyro]

Capitals yes. That is not how the mechanics work though. Gandhi detects you warmongering even if you don't capture anything. Including if they forward settle you and you had to stop it.




If he were a warmongering snowball...... What if he wasn't. What if they're just 2 rivals fighting over some land I don't care about. Unless they can threaten me, I don't care.

"If" is a false perimeter. A player who conquered another is invariably a warmongering snowball. He just got cities he didn't need to spend time or resources to build . What's not to snowball? Show me a game where a player doesn't snowball from taking cities.

You know what I wouldn't do? Piss them off when I don't have the capacity to fight back yet. Because that's stupid. This is why "Guarded" was a good thing in Civ V.

Guarded, denounced. Doesn't really make a realistic difference does it? Except denouncing actually prevents favorable trade from occurring. Sure if there's a guarded option I'm all for it so long as it applies the same penalties.

That wasn't the topic. Which is why it goes unanswered. And if people see it, you do get penalized. If nobody knows you, you don't. But sometimes. That's why it's inconsistent. They know sometimes, but not others, with little rhyme or reason.

You know, I never understood why people like to omit consequences to a particular decision as irrelevant to the topic discussed. I already explained why it is relevant and just saying it is not without disproving prior explanations isn't fair is it? I'm pretty sure you're not against this because it's inconsistent.You're against it because the game is cheating to enforce penalties.

Ah, throwing more trains to fix a trainwreck. That's certainly not worth complaining about.

Blatantly disingenuous in this case.

Well, that's why I'm asking you to provide a compromise without removing the purpose of penalties in the game. Sure go ahead and stop the AI from knowing that the player is a warmonger. How else would you enforce the price that players must pay?

 

[Archon_Wing]

"If" is a false perimeter. A player who conquered another is invariably a warmongering snowball. He just got cities he didn't need to spend time or resources to build . What's not to snowball? Show me a game where a player doesn't snowball from taking cities

That runs under the faulty assumption that attacks are always successful. Again, Gandhi's agenda does not care about that. It fires if you declare war period. If you declare war to help him, he still hates you for it. And that is what is brought up in the OP.

Warmongering penalities don't even care about that. If a war goes back and forth and cities get exchanged, you will accure warmongering penalities but not actually be ahead.

However, if you do own another capital, then that is a pretty indicator you are ahead. These are not the same.

Guarded, denounced. Doesn't really make a realistic difference does it? Except denouncing actually prevents favorable trade from occurring. Sure if there's a guarded option I'm all of it so long as it applies the same penalties.

Guarded runs under the assumption that one must be aware of attack and will give in to demands and trade but also get ready for war. Denounced is much more aggressive in that sense. You should trade with your enemies if it benefits you. The main theme of this story is self-preseveration and benefit, not moral outrage.

You know, I never understood why people like to omit consequences to a particular decision as irrelevant to the topic discussed. I already explained why it is relevant and just saying it is not without disproving prior explanations isn't fair is it? I'm pretty sure you're not against this because it's inconsistent.You're against it because the game is cheating to enforce penalties.

I could flip this and say you're for it because you don't like warmongering, lol. What's the point in finding out about my agenda? But unlike you, I don't justify the game punishing players for not doing that. In fact, I advocate for many ways to incentivize not going to war in many other threads. See, I actually care about consistency, not out to arbitrarily punish players for playing in a way you don't like.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Well, that's why I'm asking you to provide a compromise without removing the purpose of penalties in the game. Sure go ahead and stop the AI from knowing that the player is a warmonger. How else would you enforce the price that players must pay?

I've already stated it in my last reply. Make conquered cities not work as well as ones you founded themselves. Revolts, and not ending occupation penalties when war ends. Just like previous games.

Other ways include reducing penalties for defensive wars and increasing it for starting one. Normalize warmongering and war weariness closer to eras, so that early war isn't so advantageous. Make CB matter more. Defensive coalitions/join wars. Defensive Pacts that come at an actually useful time. Having CS's team up against you if you take too many. All civs declaring war on people threatening domination. Capitals start with walls. Realism can screw itself.

You make war less profitable.... by making it less profitable. Not by making the AI have to evaluate an ultimately pointless decision that makes it less capable of resisting you where you attacking a forward settling AI is the same as you going out there backstabbing everyone. At best this is a roundabout method and stupid, at worst, it's a joke. I mean Civ 4's AIs were also pushovers and there weren't really many warmonger penalities, but capturing cities were costly to deal with at first. That proves to be a much more effective check on warmongering than anything else.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Interesting that you should say that when you would avoid being friendly with a player if you found out he was a warmongering snowball.

In PvP, the warmongering is an irrelevant given. What matters is the "snowball" part.

This is not what matters to the AI.

 

[Kyro]

That runs under the faulty assumption that attacks are always successful. Again, Gandhi's agenda does not care about that. It fires if you declare war period. And that is what is brought up in the OP.

Warmongering penalities don't even care about that. If a war goes back and forth and cities get exchanged, you will accure warmongering penalities but not actually be ahead.

However, if you do own another capital, then that is a pretty indicator you are ahead. These are not the same.

Yeah an assumption that holds true for most players who know how to exploit the AI. Why do you think there are so many complaints about terrible AI? I wonder... "Failed Attacks" are like a Leprechaun in the forums now. "AI Is terrible at War". Now that swarms like hornets. Enough to cite as evidence to build an assumption.

Guarded runs under the assumption that one must be aware of attack and will give in to demands and trade but also get ready for war. Denounced is much more aggressive in that sense. You should trade with your enemies if it benefits you. The main theme of this story is self-preseveration and benefit, not moral outrage.

I'm sorry but no, the only way to fight a warmonger is to:

A: Be a warmonger yourself. There's really no other way to compete really.
B: Make sure he doesn't get to trade

Don't feed the Unicorns please they fart rainbows.

I could flip this and say you're for it because you don't like warmongering, lol. What's the point in finding out about my agenda? But unlike you, I don't justify the game punishing players for not doing that. In fact, I advocate for many ways to incentivize not going to war in many other threads. See, I actually care about consistency, not out to arbitrarily punish players for playing in a way you don't like.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Did I mention my favourite Civilization is Aztecs? I wonder what I did with +25 Combat strength in some games. I do enjoy war a lot, I've been a war game fan for over 10 years. Name it I probably played it. No I don't dislike warmongering. I don't like it being the single most powerful option in the game because it devalues all other strategies in the game. There, I've introduced myself.

I've already stated it in my last reply. Make conquered cities not work as well as ones you founded themselves. Revolts, and not ending occupation penalties when war ends. Just like previous games.

Other ways include reducing penalties for defensive wars and increasing it for starting one. Normalize warmongering and war weariness closer to eras, so that early war isn't so advantageous. Make CB matter more. Defensive coalitions/join wars. Defensive Pacts that come at an actually useful time. Realism can screw itself.

You make war less profitable.... by making it less profitable. Not by making the AI have to evaluate an ultimately pointless decision that makes it less capable of resisting you where you attacking a forward settling AI is the same as you going out there backstabbing everyone.

Oh dear I've run out of points to refute. I totally agree here. If only you mentioned this earlier.