warmonger- how do you know?

[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.

 

[Archon_Wing]

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.

First off, this is an AI problem. Of course the game breaks down when the AI fails to do its job. Of course it breaks down when people exploit. I don't even get why people would exploit and then declare it is broken I can design the best fortress in the world, but if you don't lock the gate!

Second, reading the forum skews your view, especially on a forum called civfanatics. A recent poll on this forum suggests a lot of people play emperor+ and believe it or not some of us plebs actaully sometimes find the game hard. In fact, the only reason for me to win a game on emperor was to establish marginally more e-cred. Remember that those that are better tend to speak up more about what level they're at, and forums do not represent your average player. Your average on Steam is like, chieftain. And besides, I'm sure not everyone posts games where they lose.


Third, also remember AIs fight each others too. This is what happens when things are more even, and sure it looks dumb but what happens is they call each other warmongerers and denounce each other. Now the diplomatic situation already makes it hard for friends to help each other, allowing you (the player) to pick them off one by one as easily as in a stupid horror movie

I think the necessity to form diplomatic "blocks" is the only way to ensure the smallest chance of survival against aggression. This is true regardless if you're talking about real life or a game. The weak should put aside their petty squabbles and try to live.

Spoiler :

They all die

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.

So are you saying nobody has ever won peacefully before? And just because you have the army to fight them off hardly makes yourself a warmonger. Player + City States can often fight off an aggressor pretty easily.

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.

Well, what did you know? Apparently finding agendas is difficult. And I usually don't like to war too much myself....

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

It's a separate topic altogether though, and does not really help OP. I only posted because you asked. Obviously, not everyone would agree with what I would do to change the game, and many more wouldn't care.

 

[trev1972]

Just a few comments guys

Firstly, thematically i cant buy it- when i finish a war in the BC years, then meet a civ across the ocean in the renaissance for the first time, theme wise it makes no sense to me that they both know about it and care.

Secondly- i could accept it is balance instead of theme- except for the fact the AI seems to be unaware of its own weakness and declares at times i could easily wipe it out.

In the game mentioned i had a run away start, and had a much much bigger military than say..india- yet still it ran into the cycle of declare->get butt kicked->pay for peace->declare
I had decided on space, and couldnt be bothered to send across my forces but i had a tonne of infantry/battleships/field guns and was facing obsolete units.

If the programmers want to punish war mongerer's to offset the big advantage it gives me the sensible diplomacy to implement would be trade embargoes, with an attitude of 'guarded' or even 'afraid' when the player has a giant military advantage.

Oh as to the topic of peaceful play, i agree its harder to win peacefuly (for me at least). Im not a great player, ive won immortal...but only with early wars. Emperor is my top level for peaceful play

 

[Xoon]

This happened to me in my latest as well. I had wiped out two civilizations and spread peace across my continent for a thousand years before meeting any others, yet they seem to be holding that against me.

The Civilopedia entry states "A player who launches into a non-Casus Belli war (see the section on Casus Belli under Diplomacy) will start to accumulate diplomatic warmongering penalties from other civilizations that player has come in contact with, on top of any war weariness already suffered"

That would seem to run contrary to what is happening.

 

[Josephias]

Just a few comments guys
Firstly, thematically i cant buy it- when i finish a war in the BC years, then meet a civ across the ocean in the renaissance for the first time, theme wise it makes no sense to me that they both know about it and care.

Just a point (assuming it is intended to work as described here, and it actually works <- I admit I wont bet that high on this, but that is the main idea)http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Warmongering_(Civ6)

• If you wiped out your neibourgh in ancient era, your warmonger penalty is 0 (you were still barbaric, written records are scarce, the other civ was not much of a "civ" yet....), ok, no issue.
• If you wiped out your neibourgh in classical era, you get a warmonger penalty of, let's say 49 points (declaring war, razing three cities, wiping out civ) --> thats 50 warmonger turns. If you have remained then peaceful until renaisance, it is likely there should not be warmonger penalty when other civs meet you. (yes, you have written de Ilyad declaring how your brave warriors cut the troath of every son of Troy, there are famed accounts of how you salted the ruins of Carthage... but that's all over for someone who does not exist already, and you're a good guy now).
• If you wiped out in medeval... well that should't be BC yet, there will be already pieces of art that do not belong to your civ roaming around, people that resist losing their language and still caiming these are "their lands"... nobles resisting in the mountains... the warmonger penalty increases quite a bit (91) and its not that far of the renaisance - nevertheless, if that was in the very early medieval and you meet in the late renaisance, your "brutality" will not be that well remembered, and you may be already in a 15-30 warmongering, just as if you only had declared unjustifed war to capture a city.

I don't see how it is that difficult to accept that warmongering (and I insist: lower that the one you would have had in the next turn if they already knew you when you commited the warmongering, as it decreases trough time) can still be "detected" in some way by a newcomer civ.

 

[trev1972]

Just a point (assuming it is intended to work as described here, and it actually works <- I admit I wont bet that high on this, but that is the main idea)

• If you wiped out your neibourgh in ancient era, your warmonger penalty is 0 (you were still barbaric, written records are scarce, the other civ was not much of a "civ" yet....), ok, no issue.
• If you wiped out your neibourgh in classical era, you get a warmonger penalty of, let's say 49 points (declaring war, razing three cities, wiping out civ) --> thats 50 warmonger turns. If you have remained then peaceful until renaisance, it is likely there should not be warmonger penalty when other civs meet you. (yes, you have written de Ilyad declaring how your brave warriors cut the troath of every son of Troy, there are famed accounts of how you salted the ruins of Carthage... but that's all over for someone who does not exist already, and you're a good guy now).
• If you wiped out in medeval... well that should't be BC yet, there will be already pieces of art that do not belong to your civ roaming around, people that resist losing their language and still caiming these are "their lands"... nobles resisting in the mountains... the warmonger penalty increases quite a bit (91) and its not that far of the renaisance - nevertheless, if that was in the very early medieval and you meet in the late renaisance, your "brutality" will not be that well remembered, and you may be already in a 15-30 warmongering, just as if you only had declared unjustifed war to capture a city.

I don't see how it is that difficult to accept that warmongering (and I insist: lower that the one you would have had in the next turn if they already knew you when you commited the warmongering, as it decreases trough time) can still be "detected" in some way by a newcomer civ.

Hey josephias

My warmongering penalty was only light (-8 with ghandi) but didnt drop the whole game despite me being unagressive the rest of the game (i killed the units they sent but nothing else)

 

[Josephias]

Hey josephias

My warmongering penalty was only light (-8 with ghandi) but didnt drop the whole game despite me being unagressive the rest of the game (i killed the units they sent but nothing else)

Hmm, Maybe that is Ghandi's agenda penalty (hates warmongers) and does not fade away once he as seen you as a warmonger once?. I would need to test that, but I'd need to wait until the weekend at least for that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This happened to me in my latest as well. I had wiped out two civilizations and spread peace across my continent for a thousand years before meeting any others, yet they seem to be holding that against me.

The Civilopedia entry states "A player who launches into a non-Casus Belli war (see the section on Casus Belli under Diplomacy) will start to accumulate diplomatic warmongering penalties from other civilizations that player has come in contact with, on top of any war weariness already suffered"

That would seem to run contrary to what is happening.

Since the civlopedia is part of the game and the player is not given information about this elsewhere, this occurrence is therefore a bug.

It's not a matter of opinion any longer, either the mechanic or the information on how it works is wrong. It is necessarily a bug in either case.