Warmonger is whack. So is govt. change.

[SupremacyKing2]

My suggestions for fixing warmonger penalties:
1) Pacifist civs would give you a higher warmonger penalty.
2) Allies and friendly civs would give you a lower warmonger penalty.
3) Razing cities would give higher warmonger penalty.
4) Capturing cities would give less warmonger penalty than razing.
5) Not ceding cities at the end of war would give you a higher warmonger penalty.
6) Surprise wars would give higher warmonger penalty.
7) Capturing cities would give lesser warmonger penalty if you are the victim of a surprise war.
8) Warmonger penalties should fade gradually over time.
9) Add "anti-warmonger" bonuses like coming to an ally's aid in time of war, liberating cities back to their previous owner, ceding cities back during peace. The bonuses would also fade over time.

Basically, surprise wars, razing cities and not ceding cities back during peace should give the biggest warmonger penalties.

 

[historix69]

but if they did I don't think they would be considered warmongers

History is written / interpreted by those who win the war. The history of Carthage is told by roman historians.

Curtis LeMay once said that the interpretation of his actions in WW2 depended on if the US won or lost the war.
"had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes."
He was responsible for the firebombing campaign against japanese cities killing hundred thousands of japanese civilians in 1945 before Japan surrendered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

In Civ if a group of allied / befriended civs wipes out all other civs, there might be zero warmonger points since you only get warmonger points with a civ if the civ does not agree with your war.

 

[historix69]

My suggestions for fixing warmonger penalties:
1) Pacifist civs would give you a higher warmonger penalty.
2) Allies and friendly civs would give you a lower warmonger penalty.
3) Razing cities would give higher warmonger penalty.
4) Capturing cities would give less warmonger penalty than razing.
5) Not ceding cities at the end of war would give you a higher warmonger penalty.
6) Surprise wars would give higher warmonger penalty.
7) Capturing cities would give lesser warmonger penalty if you are the victim of a surprise war.
8) Warmonger penalties should fade gradually over time.
9) Add "anti-warmonger" bonuses like coming to an ally's aid in time of war, liberating cities back to their previous owner, ceding cities back during peace. The bonuses would also fade over time.

Basically, surprise wars, razing cities and not ceding cities back during peace should give the biggest warmonger penalties.

I think most of those ideas are already implemented. The problem is that for the 6000 years of a Civ game those rules only applied for the last two hundred years, maybe starting with industrial era ... in ancient times razing cities, enslaving population was common and nobody cared for warmonger points. (That's why warmonger points are scaled by era.)

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think most of those ideas are already implemented. The problem is that for the 6000 years of a Civ game those rules only applied for the last two hundred years, maybe starting with industrial era ... in ancient times razing cities, enslaving population was common and nobody cared for warmonger points. (That's why warmonger points are scaled by era.)

Maybe how warmonger points scale by era should be changed even more to reduce warmonger penalties before the industrial era then? Would it be so bad if severe warmonger penalties were really only a late game mechanic?

 

[historix69]

Maybe how warmonger points scale by era should be changed even more to reduce warmonger penalties before the industrial era then? Would it be so bad if severe warmonger penalties were really only a late game mechanic?

According to Eras.xml, the Warmonger Points build up in strength starting with 0 (ancient), 6, 12, 18, 24 (industrial and following) ...

So better secure your continent with slingers, bowmen and crossbowmen than with infantry, tanks and battleships.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

According to Eras.xml, the Warmonger Points build up in strength starting with 0 (ancient), 6, 12, 18, 24 (industrial and following) ...

I understand that is how it currently works. I am asking if maybe the scale up should be even more drastic. What if it was something like 0,0,5,15,24?

Changing the scale of warmonger penalties won't fix the problem. The most important fix is to reduce warmonger penalties between friends/allies and reduce warmonger penalties between two warmonger civs.

 

[Jackanape]

I'd like to see warmonger penalties waived if, after the third time that jerk declared war on you, you decided it wasn't worth the effort allowing him to live.

I mean, really. You can slap them back a million times, and you just know they'll do it again. After a while it should be A OK to crush them...

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

According to Eras.xml, the Warmonger Points build up in strength starting with 0 (ancient), 6, 12, 18, 24 (industrial and following)

I understand that is how it currently works. I am asking if maybe the scale up should be even more drastic. What if it was something like 0,0,5,15,24?

It is odd that warmongering penalties max out in the industrial era. I'd say the tolerance for war has continued to decline, broadly speaking, through the modern and information ages. There's certainly room to lower the penalties earlier and delay maxing them out until a later era than Industrial. Whether that would be good for gameplay balance, though, I don't know.

I'd like to see warmonger penalties waived if, after the third time that jerk declared war on you, you decided it wasn't worth the effort allowing him to live.

I mean, really. You can slap them back a million times, and you just know they'll do it again. After a while it should be A OK to crush them...

I think you've captured the essence of a lot of the concerns raised about warmongering penalties: if we think our actions are justified, we don't expect or agree with negative consequences arising from them.

 

[kb27787]

It is odd that warmongering penalties max out in the industrial era. I'd say the tolerance for war has continued to decline, broadly speaking, through the modern and information ages. There's certainly room to lower the penalties earlier and delay maxing them out until a later era than Industrial. Whether that would be good for gameplay balance, though, I don't know.




I think you've captured the essence of a lot of the concerns raised about warmongering penalties: if we think our actions are justified, we don't expect or agree with negative consequences arising from them.

The "justification", if you will, is already covered under "casus belli".

The problem is as the defender the game considers you as having no justification for your actions (because you don't get to select a casus belli)... which is silly as everyone would almost universally agree that self defense or retribution on an aggressor is an acceptable justification. I would've liked to see a huge warmonger penalty/war weariness reduction (to zero even) for cities taken during a defensive war. Part of the reason why rounding up Japanese Americans into camps was socially accepted during WW2 was probably people feel that the Japanese started the aggression with the surprise attack on pearl harbor.

 

[historix69]

The "justification", if you will, is already covered under "casus belli".

The problem is as the defender the game considers you as having no justification for your actions (because you don't get to select a casus belli)... which is silly as everyone would almost universally agree that self defense or retribution on an aggressor is an acceptable justification. I would've liked to see a huge warmonger penalty/war weariness reduction (to zero even) for cities taken during a defensive war. Part of the reason why rounding up Japanese Americans into camps was socially accepted during WW2 was probably people feel that the Japanese started the aggression with the surprise attack on pearl harbor.

It would be nice to have two-way declaration of war, e.g. A declares surprise war on B for conquest and B declares a defensive war with retaliation against A.

About the japanese in WW2 :
Don't underestimate racism in the US and the rest of the world against black, colored, white and asian people in first half of 20th century. US War propaganda pictured japanese people like vermin to be exterminated. They were hardly seen as human, more as dangerous "underhumans" who should accept white (colonial) supremacy / domination in asia.
see e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead#Dehumanization

 

[Victoria]

Don't underestimate racism in the US

Or any other nation at that time. The Information Age has changed us but back then you only saw what was fed to you unless privileged.

 

[historix69]

Or any other nation at that time. The Information Age has changed us but back then you only saw what was fed to you unless privileged.

That's what I meant with
"racism in the US and the rest of the world against black, colored, white and asian people in first half of 20th century."

 

[Abaxial]

Having a CB reduces your penalty for declaring war - maybe it should also affect any penalties for capturing cities as well?

 

[Victoria]

Having a CB reduces your penalty for declaring war - maybe it should also affect any penalties for capturing cities as well?

It does, everything hangs off the initial war declaration value ... apart from when its 0 there are exceptions

 

[zxcvbob]

It does, everything hangs off the initial war declaration value ... apart from when its 0 there are exceptions

I'm playing one now; I declared war in the classical era with a CB, so minimal warmonger points. I took 2 cities (the first was a capital, I don't know if that matters); and I think the era advanced to medieval for the second one. My victim (Japan) still had 2 cities. That was enough for everybody to hate me, and it doesn't seem to be degrading because they keep denouncing me.

I am okay with this; I just don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Japan and China and a neighboring CS declared a formal war against me. I've been killing their units, and just made peace with Japan and the CS. I am refusing peace with China and will wipe him out unless war-weariness stops me before I finish, keeping the good cities and razing the bad ones.

 

[bcaiko]

You need to take a closer look at history. The Soviet Union relinquished very little after WW2 and was derided heavily and often by the world community for this. Another example would be Israel and the negative diplomatic sentiments generated by the fact that they have never given up the West Bank or other territories even though they didn't start the wars that resulted in their possession of said territories. Just look at whats going on with Jerusalem today! When speaking of geo-political dynamics, one cannot ascribe some quaint sense of fairness. No matter how 'justified' occupation seems to be, the rest of the community will always be against it if for no other reason than to keep the occupier from gaining more power. In that sense, the warmonger penalties in Civ6 are rather realistic.

You're conflating the initial conquest with keeping the territory. I was talking about the former. To end the war, Stalin marched through German conquered territory and put that territory under Soviet control. No one thought that was "warmongering" at the time. It was the pragmatic option. And when the USSR marched onto Berlin - that was the obvious thing to do to end the war against an aggressive power that'd broken a treaty in a surprise attack.

Meanwhile, the warmonger penalties that apply to you the minute you take a city are unintuitive and - frankly - stupid. If I'm in the middle of a war with someone who's a "Germany-sized" pain-in-the-bum, I'm not going to be nice about taking their territory on the way to the capital to MAKE them stop. It makes no sense that I wouldn't put their territory under my control while the war is active, and I shouldn't be punished for that. If I KEEP that territory at the conclusion of the war - THAT is when I should be punished for warmongering (as in your real life example above). Rather than fight the players' expectations, a good game would play into them with well-thought mechanics.

 

[historix69]

One of the main criticism is how the Soviet Union dealt with all the minor nations they "liberated" from Nazi occupation. In fact they turned them into satellite states and used them as a buffer zone against the west behind the "Iron Curtain".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Meanwhile, the warmonger penalties that apply to you the minute you take a city are unintuitive and - frankly - stupid. If I'm in the middle of a war with someone who's a "Germany-sized" pain-in-the-bum, I'm not going to be nice about taking their territory on the way to the capital to MAKE them stop. It makes no sense that I wouldn't put their territory under my control while the war is active, and I shouldn't be punished for that. If I KEEP that territory at the conclusion of the war - THAT is when I should be punished for warmongering (as in your real life example above). Rather than fight the players' expectations, a good game would play into them with well-thought mechanics.

Agree 100%. Which is why I think the victim of a surprise attacks should get no warmonger penalties for taking cities, only warmonger penalties for keeping cities after peace is concluded. If a warmonger attacks me by surprise, I should be able to take his/her cities to make them sue for peace.

 

[Victoria]

I declared war in the classical era with a CB, so minimal warmonger points.

So its not really a CB, A formal war is not really a Casus but it is less points than a surprise. Only 4 in the classical.
So you declare war for 4 and take 2 cities for 2 each (capital does not count, last city is 3x) so that's only 8 WM points which degrade at a point every 2 turns. They probably already disliked you to denounce you and because you are having little idea about their points you probably did not send them a delegation when you met them.
Basically if you do not play the diplomatic game you suffer first impressions for a while and also are at the mercy of their agendas.
You only needed to do a small amount of work to avoid most of your hate but you seem to have done little.

 

[zxcvbob]

I might have sent one delegation to someone I don't intend to invade for a while, but mostly I've ignored diplomacy this game. I'm being an ******* and nobody should like me. But they started hating me a lot sooner than I think they should have, and I figured it was a feedback loop where they hate me because they denounced me instead of the other way around.

I denounced Japan 5 turns before I declared a formal war; I think the warmonger penalty was described as "modest" or "slight", or something like that. Same when I took their cities, and I didn't wipe them out or raze anything. I've captured 2 or 3 cities from China so far in the war they declared on me, and the capital is next. I will probably leave them (and Japan) alive just so I will have places to send my traders when I finish Great Zimbabwe. I should count up the CS's I can reach, there might be enough of them for the trade routes...