Warmonger is whack. So is govt. change.

[Ticklepink]

I played Pedro and declared war on no one. I waited and took cities after I had wars declared on me. The fact I take cities makes me a warmonger? That's whack. I have to sit back and allow folks to declare war on me and then when they're about to lose their cities I have to say "ok".."I grant you the entitlement to declare war on me so I don't get everyone calling me a warmonger." That's messed up. AND.. I'm playing Japan now and I have tried to change my government THREE times because it's granted to me to change my government for FREE..however every time I go to change my government a leader speaks to me and pushes the move. It is literally 1800 and I JUST got a free move to Oligarchy. This needs to be fixed.

 

[Victoria]

The fact I take cities makes me a warmonger?

The defender of a declaration of war is deemed surprised by the attack and so any city they take is at 1.5* ... are you saying you can take another countries cities without being a warmonger... I would call that wack (even though I do not know the slang term meaning)

It is literally 1800 and I JUST got a free move to Oligarchy

not sure I understand what you are saying, the first time you choose any government is free because you have not tried it yet, try moving to a government you have used before. There is nothing wrong with being an Oligarch in 2100 apart from the lack of slots.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I have tried to change my government THREE times because it's granted to me to change my government for FREE..however every time I go to change my government a leader speaks to me and pushes the move. It is literally 1800 and I JUST got a free move to Oligarchy. This needs to be fixed.

You can click on the Civics button in the left hand side of the top bar to change your government and policies. If you do it on the same turn that you get a new government policy, you can do so for free. You can do this any time prior to clicking "Next Turn" and still make the free change. So even if you are interrupted by a foreign leader and can't click on "Change Policies" notification at the start of the turn, you can still make the changes that turn.

 

[ZubieMaster]

I played Pedro and declared war on no one. I waited and took cities after I had wars declared on me. The fact I take cities makes me a warmonger? That's whack. I have to sit back and allow folks to declare war on me and then when they're about to lose their cities I have to say "ok".."I grant you the entitlement to declare war on me so I don't get everyone calling me a warmonger." That's messed up.

There is the sense of justice that any civilization that's willing to take the egregious step of declaring war on someone else has forfeited the right to exist and deserves anything they get, and therefore you should be fully justified wiping them out, but the game has chosen the other position -- you are only entitled to fend off their advances, kill off all their troops and rape & pillage their lands. The moment you take the city you are now the so-called "aggressor" and thus suffer warmonger penalties. Most people here agree with the game's view so I wouldn't bet on the game changing its philosophy, so you'll have to accept it or mod it to your preferences.

 

[bcaiko]

The defender of a declaration of war is deemed surprised by the attack and so any city they take is at 1.5* ... are you saying you can take another countries cities without being a warmonger... I would call that wack (even though I do not know the slang term meaning)

From a game design perspective, this is messed up. The AI doesn't respect consequences like, say, a human does. And the OP is right - if you DON'T take cities from the AI, it will continually hamper the player with the same aggressive behavior. The player shouldn't be aggressively punished for that understandable response, and in general the warmonger penalty has always been ridiculous, overly punishing, unrealistic (from a player v. player perspective) and unintuitive.

Overrunning a city during a war isn't even unusual in the real world. Was Russia a warmonger for conquering German territory on its march to Berlin to end the the Second World War? I don't think many folks would argue that. They had to clear a path. But they were looked at with skepticism for KEEPING a lot of that territory. Similarly, I've always advocated that there should be a mechanic in the game that allows for returning conquered cities at the conclusion of a war (including the capital) for some large, tangible benefits that would offer the player a real choice to consider.

 

[Ticklepink]

If a leader declares war on me and they don't realize the ramifications of an ally city state sitting on their front doorstep taking down their walls and they decide to "call it off" after destroying my campuses and ampitheaters, why am I deemed a "warmonger" for not rolling over and supplying them lube? It makes no sense whatsoever. Last night playing Harold Hardrada , I even offered to buy cities for the privilege of walking back a war declaration and STILL i would get angry sword swinging from Trajan who had declared war on me !! These people declare war on me and then call me a warmonger cause they lose the war? And thanks for the tip about changing governments.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Basically, when you get attacked, you don't have a CB and full warmonger penalties apply.

It's not too hard to make peace in 10 turns, assemble during the break, and come in with a proper CB, isn't it? If you weren't expecting war, this will probably get the job done faster anyways. If you want, you can take down their walls first as they probably won't fix them any time soon.

Also, try to liberate any dead CS along the way.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

These people declare war on me and then call me a warmonger cause they lose the war?

There's a real world precedent for this. You can avoid it by not keeping any cities you take. You won't get warmongering penalties for taking all of their gold in a peace settlement.

 

[Tech Osen]

Overrunning a city during a war isn't even unusual in the real world. Was Russia a warmonger for conquering German territory on its march to Berlin to end the the Second World War? I don't think many folks would argue that. They had to clear a path. But they were looked at with skepticism for KEEPING a lot of that territory. Similarly, I've always advocated that there should be a mechanic in the game that allows for returning conquered cities at the conclusion of a war (including the capital) for some large, tangible benefits that would offer the player a real choice to consider.

Returning cities during peace negotiations will undo all warmongering penalties for city captures.
The allies won ww2 but didn't keep any German or Japanese cities.

 

[Victoria]

The player shouldn't be aggressively punished for that understandable response, and in general the warmonger penalty has always been ridiculous, overly punishing, unrealistic (from a player v. player perspective) and unintuitive.

Was Russia a warmonger for conquering German territory on its march to Berlin to end the the Second World War? I don't

If you give a city back there is 0 warmonger points, it’s if you keep it there is and at worst taking a city is -36 warmonger points which is gone in 72 turns. It’s just people do not take 1, they take 3-4 get very strong and whine because they are no longer loved for it. To me the rules are just fine.

EDIT: I need to validate WM points, they may have changed

 

[Abaxial]

There might be some merit in bringing back "puppet cities". The USSR didn't keep E European cities that they conquered en route to Berlin as Soviet territory, but they didn't exactly let go of them either.

Two options:

1) There are mods available that reduce or eliminate warmonger penalties.

2) Live up to it! Let them all denounce you for being a warmonger and conquer a few more cities while you're at it.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, consider the Korean War, where North Korea attacks South Korea and the US helps push them back. But then they push all the way to China and China pushes them back down because they don't want the US on their doorstep.

Sometimes it's not about morality but rather about you altering the balance of power and that makes sense in game, or as an actual historical thingy.

Also people did not make light of the USSR's war crimes when invading Germany either; many atrocities were committed for revenge which certainly wasn't a justified reason.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Warmonger penalties are one of the remaining big issues in R&F.
Not as bad as before thanks to the new era pacing, but still occasionally infuriating.
There are a few ways to fix that.

Have a new retroactive casus belli "Defensive War" available at Defensive Tactics (so you have to deal with this nonsense once and only once) that severely reduces your war weariness and moderately reduces
warmonger penalty from taking cities.

Make the warmonger penalty modifier dependant on your enemy's warmonger penalty. If you attack a peaceful civ you get the full diplomatic fallout. If you take a city from someone who already has a high warmonger rating (maybe from conquered city states or the war they just declared on you), no one gives a damn because the warmonger had it coming.

And last but absolutely not least: Make joint wars count as surprise wars, unless the attackers are allied and have both denounced the target.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think the biggest issue is still there's no intervention ability. So you may go to war with someone attacking your friend, and then they call you a warmongerer.

 

[Abaxial]

I sometimes wish AIs had emotions. I think to myself, "NOW aren't you sorry you declared war on me?" as I take a city off them.

Of course, you can return the city you conquered in exchange for another one, and then you don't get the warmonger penalty, Trouble is, the one you conquered will be the one just over your border and therefore the one you want to keep.

 

[Ticklepink]

Warmonger penalties are one of the remaining big issues in R&F.
Not as bad as before thanks to the new era pacing, but still occasionally infuriating.
There are a few ways to fix that.

Have a new retroactive casus belli "Defensive War" available at Defensive Tactics (so you have to deal with this nonsense once and only once) that severely reduces your war weariness and moderately reduces
warmonger penalty from taking cities.

Make the warmonger penalty modifier dependant on your enemy's warmonger penalty. If you attack a peaceful civ you get the full diplomatic fallout. If you take a city from someone who already has a high warmonger rating (maybe from conquered city states or the war they just declared on you), no one gives a damn because the warmonger had it coming.

And last but absolutely not least: Make joint wars count as surprise wars, unless the attackers are allied and have both denounced the target.

This, this and this.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Warmonger penalties are one of the remaining big issues in R&F.
Not as bad as before thanks to the new era pacing, but still occasionally infuriating.
There are a few ways to fix that.

Have a new retroactive casus belli "Defensive War" available at Defensive Tactics (so you have to deal with this nonsense once and only once) that severely reduces your war weariness and moderately reduces
warmonger penalty from taking cities.

Make the warmonger penalty modifier dependant on your enemy's warmonger penalty. If you attack a peaceful civ you get the full diplomatic fallout. If you take a city from someone who already has a high warmonger rating (maybe from conquered city states or the war they just declared on you), no one gives a damn because the warmonger had it coming.

And last but absolutely not least: Make joint wars count as surprise wars, unless the attackers are allied and have both denounced the target.

I don't find the current Warmonger system a problem in the least. I haven't found it challenging to keep and maintain friends, whether I do no war at all or limited war, taking a handful of cities. A couple of advantageous trades / gifts, focus on a Leader's agenda or two, and before long diplomatic relations are normalized. Other than civs whose cities you still occupy, and who can blame them.

Even if I steamroller a couple of civs, as long as I eventually stop warring, my neighbours come around and alliances can ensue.

And no, personally, I see no reason for the game to differentiate Warmonger penalties for taking someone else's city based on who started the war or what their Warmonger score is. You're occupying a city you didn't settle and that should be the end of the story. The game already gives you a benefit for liberating cities previously captured by another civ. I see no reason why you should get a pass for keeping those cities for yourself.

You want to punish a civ who attacked you? Pillage their districts, take their cities and trade tiles to your adjacent cities, give their reduced territory cities back but take all of their gold and luxuries for 30 turns.

 

[Tech Osen]

The game already gives you a benefit for liberating cities previously captured by another civ. I see no reason why you should get a pass for keeping those cities for yourself.

You aware of the Protectorate CB loophole?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

You aware of the Protectorate CB loophole?

No. Don't think I've ever declared a Protectorate War.

Come to think of it, don't think I've ever declared anything other than Surprise and Formal Wars. I've never noticed the Warmonger penalties to be severe enough to worry about what level they're at. It's only if Tomrys is in the game that I even check to see if Formal War is available.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

You aware of the Protectorate CB loophole?

I wasn't aware of a Protectorate CB loophole but there is/was a City State Emergency loophole (I think they recently patched it, but not sure).
If you accept a City State Emergency you automatically declare war with zero warmonger penalty against the civ who conquered the CS and can freely raze or conquer every single one of their cities. The war doesn't automatically end even after the timer has run out or the CS is liberated, so you can finish them off at your leasure.