Warmonger penalties and Casus Belli doesn't work

[pietro1990]

Ok this feature really ruins the fun in the game..

So if you denounce a player and declare war after 5 turns you should get a reduction of warmonger penalty.. However you still get denounced by everyone if you declare war this way.


Declare Protectorate War only works if you have this casus belli at the moment the Ai declares war at youre city states or ally.

If you unlock the casus belli after the AI conquered the city state it doesn't work this is what happend at me:
I used formal war (denounced him) and then atacked. wich resulted in everyone denouncing me... Then i lberated my city state and got a reduction in warmongering however everyone is still pissed at me.

Conclussion the warmonger penalty for declaring war is to high.

 

[AriochIV]

Casus belli doesn't eliminate warmonger penalties, it just reduces them. And not by very much.

 

[pietro1990]

Casus belli doesn't eliminate warmonger penalties, it just reduces them. And not by very much.

But don't you see the problem that the warmonger penalty for declaring war is to high? even after i lberated still everyone hated me ?

my point is they did a great job at brave new world low penalty for declaring so you could atack and liberate city states the huns for example atacked withouth the world hating you but if you start taking his original cities from atilla the world would denounce you makes sence.

I declared war for liberating a city state that was my ally. didn't take any cites after i liberated i made peace

 

[criZp]

I think they should just take out the whole warmonger diplo penalty, the computer is always just being dumb about it and getting angry for wrong reasons.

 

[pietro1990]

I think they should just take out the whole warmonger diplo penalty, the computer is always just being dumb about it and getting angry for wrong reasons.

I dissagree its a good mechanic to stop other AI and the player's that are running away capturing lots of cities .

They need to return to the brave new world concept. Where you get a light penalty for declaring hardly noticeble but each time you take a city you get a penalty depending on how many cites there are on the map and how many cities the enemy(person you are at war with) has. So taking a city from a civ that has 25 cities gives you a light penalty but taking a city from someone who only has 3 cities is a major one.

olso if you atacked a civilization for liberating a city state you wouldn't get ANY PENALTIES because the penalty for atacking isn't so big.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Totally agree that the CB system, while a good idea, is proving to be woefully inadequate in practice. I conquered two AI cities in the Middle Ages with a formal war in my game, and that made me a worldwide pariah the rest of the way. That's no fun.

Honestly, why do we need warmonger penalties at all? The AIs already have plenty of reasons to hate the player (from their agendas). They don't need this too.

 

[pietro1990]

Totally agree that the CB system, while a good idea, is proving to be woefully inadequate in practice. I conquered two AI cities in the Middle Ages with a formal war in my game, and that made me a worldwide pariah the rest of the way. That's no fun.

Honestly, why do we need warmonger penalties at all? The AIs already have plenty of reasons to hate the player (from their agendas). They don't need this too.

I stopped playing the game after a few hours because the Ai is just so annoying fi you declare war one time you are a evil person really? its just isn't fun

at least at brave new world it made sence i conquered 4 cities of course i am a warmonger

 

[GhostSalsa]

I dissagree its a good mechanic to stop other AI and the player's that are running away capturing lots of cities

A good mechanic for that would simply be, "AI dislikes runaways." And it's already in place.

Disliking players who declare war means either war needs to be taken out of the game, because like CiV vanilla you were never actually supposed to do it (despite being asked to by every AI and city-state), or the AI needs to go off and play a different game since it seems to hate the terms of this one.

either features (war) are meant to be engaged with or not

That said, if the dev's intention with cb hassling is not to punish war but add to the diplomacy side-game, then with a lot of tweaking they might make a balance.

 

[Matte979]

Why do you need friends so bad?, declaring wars without reason or taking cities should make the AI upset. That said some values are off, like getting penalized when you declare a joint was by your allied party, as I said in another post it does seem to decay.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Why do you need friends so bad?, declaring wars without reason or taking cities should make the AI upset.

If you can't conquer in Medieval and Ren. without being considered some aberrant monster, then the mid-game should just be skipped with a cut-scene, because all role play and historical representation are out the window.

The fact is, we only need friends in the first 4000 years of the game because it gives the player more to do. Great! But if the player has to surrender the friendship game just for daring to launch a cannon ball at a wall once in the history of their civilization, the game is not working right.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Why do you need friends so bad?, declaring wars without reason or taking cities should make the AI upset. That said some values are off, like getting penalized when you declare a joint was by your allied party, as I said in another post it does seem to decay.

In my game, I fought one expansive war in the Middle Ages. I declared war formally, took and kept 2 cities, and razed a third useless one. I immediately got denounced by every other Civ on the map.

I'm now in the atomic age, and every single Civ on the map still hates my guts, and is constantly denouncing me. They won't accept any trades. I'm trying to give them my excess luxuries so they'll stop hating me, and they won't even let me do that unless I pay them a ton of gold too. I am fulfilling Egypt's regular agenda (strong military) and hidden agenda (high faith), but Cleopatra still hates me because the warmonger penalty dwarfs that.

So basically, embarking on one rather modest conquest in the Medieval Era completely shut off diplomacy for the rest of my game. The agendas and so forth may as well not exist for all they matter anymore.

I don't think that's how it's supposed to work.

 

[yutterh]

how did you go to war with them? did you denounce. wait 5 turns, then attacked or did you denounce, wait 5 turns, then declare war through the diplomacy screen, then attacked. Because if you march your units into their territory even if denounced and waiting the five turns, it is still a suprise war. Also you have to make sure other nations don't already hate you. cause sometimes that warmonger penalty can set others over the edge. I have been at war and attacked, so far i have had no one surprise jump me for warmonger penalties. I was denounced but thats because they already had other negatives toward me. others that were okay were a little weary but doing trades and deals off sets that. your warmonger penalty dwindles.

 

[remconius]

Here is my experience with warmonger penalty. I has denounced egypt and was ready for a formal war after 5 turns. When I declared a formal war my warmonger penalty with other civs was -16 instead of -24 for surprise war. Quite high but the relations I had built up with France and US were strong enough to stay friends.

And the good thing was, every turn the warmonger penalty decreases by 1. So keeping peace improves this situation clearly.

Building relations really helps to declare war later on.

 

[King Jason]

echoing the point above, you need to work at diplomacy a bit. Trade routes, trade deals, open borders, and delegations are all important. Then hope/try not to annoy their hidden agenda. I went to war three times in the span of 100 turns and conquered an entire civ and was able to keep two allies. On declaration was even a surprise war.

their warmonger modifers were in the 30s - they didn't care.

 

[dturtle1]

In my game, I fought one expansive war in the Middle Ages. I declared war formally, took and kept 2 cities, and razed a third useless one. I immediately got denounced by every other Civ on the map

.... This is the problem right here, you can't really raze unless it is really early. Razing has triple warmonger penalty attached to it. People dont like exterminations .

Pity the A.I is absolutely crazy with its settling logic. Phillip had one city that i could see( a city-state)... I had 10 cities and with lots of unscouted land Playing as Trajan). Phillip decides that the best spot for a city is right in the middle of my empire in the cracks between my cities. Like he literally walked 30 turns to settle there , I mean there was a perfectly good river next to a god damn Natural wonder next to his other city, why the hell does he settle between the cracks of my emepire, it wasn't just on the edge too it was literally next to my capital. I haven't had too many issues with warmonger penalties, most of the time they declare war on me(maybe because i am forward settling on them all the time

. Also if you want to keep cities make sure you eliminate them, it removes the penalty somewhat.



.

 

[Dracul JOSHI]

Nah it works as intended... to discourage warmongering because people warmonger in Civ like it's the most normal thing to do.

one of the reason I don't play civ with people... EVER.

they play it like a boardgame instead of a sim game.

 

[kaspergm]

I don't mind the warmonger penalty system on paper, it's just way too high. I don't know the numbers in Civ6, but in Civ5 it would stick on you entire game if you conquered one civ early game, which was skewing the game enormously. I think the bonus rises too quickly also in Civ6, but I don't know how long it sticks to you - if it wears off faster than in Civ5, it can work.

The system does seem to be bugged, however. I could declare formal war on someone without having denounced them. Sure, they had denounced me two or three turns before, but if that counts, the tooltip is extremely misleading. And if it simply counted as a surprise war, that needs to be fixed also, because that's really misleading the player.

 

[need my speed]

There is hope: http://i.imgur.com/eEQwIJB.png

But yes, why is it so hard to go back to Civilization IV regarding AI's? AI's have a peace-value (Genghis Khan would have it near zero, Gandhi at ten), AI's like other AI's with the same peace value (as well as a plethora of other diplomatic modifiers, of course), and the only kind of warmonger penalty is that for declaring war upon one's friend. That system worked perfectly.

 

[Quineloe]

Casi Belli seems utterly broken right now.

War of territorial expansion should be possible here according to the game description. I don't even understand exactly what the conditions are because it's pretty vague, but clearly even the cities that are furthest apart are closer than 10 tiles, so it should be the case here, no matter how it is defined exactly.

http://imgur.com/a/4oQSp

It isn't.

Neither is a Colonial war, even though he's trailing three eras behind. Colonial war very often simply doesn't show up in the CB menu - which usually means CB doesn't show up at all in diplomacy..

As already pointed out, liberation war is not a thing. Protectorate war also didn't trigger for me the very turn a civ declared war on my suzerain CS.

As for the warmonger penalty as it is, well we could just re-read the threads about Civ 5 when it was the exact same issue. Warmongering penalites should not last through the ages. The fact wars in the ancient era don't count as warmongering and even the civs you fought against completely forget about them the very moment you have peace again is the opposite extreme.

I also applaud that you can now react to a denounce with a formal war - if only the code behind that worked

Edit: I have yet another game here where I am in the atomic era, and there are four Civs in the industrial era.

one I am at war with.
one I can declare a formal war, but not a colonial war because he denounced me
one I can't declare any casus belli war at all,
one I can declare colonial war on.

Very funny.

 

[isau]

I have been looking at this closely and it is actually not quite the case that the AI hates you forever for war. At least not directly.

What appears to be the case is there is a hidden number that represents your relationship with the civ. Any + - you see on screen is the change per turn. So if it's -16 that means you are losing 16 influence per turn. This is totally different from Civ 4 or Civ 5 and it was only after a ton of scratching my head that I figured it out. The diplo screen offers no clues that this is how it works.

Warmonger penalties degrade at a rate of 1 per turn. So -16 (for example) becomes -15 and then -14 so on. But the way you need to think of it is like a Damage Over Time spell in an RPG. It's doing damage to your invisible hit point total in the background.

Now here's some hilarious numbers. The war monger penalties tend to come in multiples of 4 (4, 8, 16, 24, etc). But if I'm right about the invisible "hit point" system, an increase from 8 to 16 is the difference between 36 points of damage and 136. LOL. So that would kill any relationship and it's no wonder civs are struggling. I don't think they realized this when they coded it...

BTW sending the civs gifts appears to work the opposite way, like a Heal Over Time spell. The bonus of the gift decays quickly from the diplo screen. But if you give to Ghandi (for example) and get a +10 modifier, decaying at a rate of 2 per turn, you heal 10+8+6+4+2 diplomacy with him, for a total of +30. Do that a few times and he'll eventually love you (space out the gifts so you get the full +10 with each gift).