Warmonger not making sense...

[varus]

Here's the vignette:
I'm playing as Gorgo. I've only met 4 civs, one of which was Peter. I met him before meeting anyone else, and ate him alive entirely. I then met Monty and Pedro. For centuries, that was it. Monty was busy conquering Pedro and occasional city states, I was just building up my economy.

Eventually we all start taking to the waves and I meet America. I've only known Ted for about 20 turns now (epic speed). Relations are neutral.

Monty has been denouncing me all game for whatever reasons. At some point, I denounce Monty because I want those city states to be free again. 5 turns or so later, formal war. Severe warmonger penalty.

Ted is FURIOUS. -30 or so relations hit. Understandable.

I then liberate Stockholm. Severe warmonger relief.

I then liberate Brussels. Severe warmonger relief.

I then get peace from Monty.

Ted is FURIOUS. -27 warmonger relations.

WTH? I should be in the positive!

Can anyone explain how exactly this works? What's the relationship between the value for declaring the war itself and the value for each individual city?

 

[Furycrab]

Higher the Era, higher the Warmonger penalty for anything. Surprise Wars come with a 50% harsher penalty. If you were denounced by the person or you denounce them for 5 turns, you get a base penalty. From there, the penalties go down depending on which Casus Beli you are use, but some come with restrictions.

When you liberated a CS and it says you lost the "Severe" penalty for not keeping the city, it just means that you don't get the extra "severe" penalty, but you still keep the one for starting the war.

Seems to me like you were late enough in the game that you should stop using the Denounce Casus Beli in favor of some of the new ones you start getting starting at Diplomatic Service.

 

[varus]

If what you are saying is true, then we are not in fact getting a warmonger relief as the game states. What we are getting is something neutral, which is not what it says.
Penalty is a -x.
Relief should be a +x.
Neutral is 0, and should just say "no effect."

 

[Chiyo]

Can someone explain why there is a warmonger penatly in the first place? Half of the game is about war. Half of the stuff I can build in my cities is units. Still this game after the classical era discourages war so much that in later eras I am yet to see an AI go to war.

So it does not make sense from a gameplay view and even less if you look at history. The middle ages have been fulll of war. I don't think China or Japan cared when Spain conquered the Aztecs. The other Europeans did not as well and several tribes neighbouring the Aztecs even helped the Spanish. In this game they would all hate them. And even in modern times the diplomatic penalties are not that severe in real life. Being German I can assure you that your country will not be looked down upon by all other leaders until 2050. So why is it so different in this game?

 

[cazaderonus]

Who cares about being hated, so far i havent had any real need for trades.

But yeah, the diplomacy needs to be reworked. civs get hostile over nothing, war weariness is out of hand in conquered cities way too quickly even if not fightinh their original owner, and the warmonger penalties are just too harsh, even very early game.

As chiyo said, maybe the game should take distance into account. wars happening far from a civ shouldnt concern them unless some special relationships are involved. to me, the current penalties are fine for late game where war should be frowned upon by everyone. but the mid game ones arent in a good place

 

[Gtdead]

I'm friendly with Tomyris and she asked me for a joint war against the aztecs.

I accept because Aztecs are far ahead than anyone else.
-48 warmonger penalty with Tomyris. In this particular game, I didn't even declare a single war.

Whaaat?

Didn't matter much though.