Warmonger penalties and Casus Belli doesn't work

[pietro1990]

Then you should try Beyound Earth Rising Tide, if you didn't already. It have the opposite of a warmonger penalty, it's actually beneficial to wage war. Having a big army and waging war increase how much other civs fear you, which can be used to cooperate(friendship) and ally with other Civs, just like you can use respect (how much a Civ likes you) to cooperate and ally, only downside is that an alliance by fear is unstable, with a chance for backstab.

Well isn't that how politics work? why do you thinx the united states is the head of political discissuions because they are the most powerfull

 

[steveg700]

No, I didn't benefit. I was playing totally peaceful, they made me stop my buildings/wonders/infrastructure and spend all my gold on rushbuying units. Now I am behind on all my peacefull plan, and instead of wasting all that money, I take a little compensation in form of a city or two. That is not playing as a warmonger

The issue is that players being what they are would attempt to bypass the warmonger penalty by building up an invasion army and then provoke the AI into a DoW so that they take the diplo hit. The notion here is that if you're fighting defensively, you won't seek to capture their cities, but rather seek to return to a peaceful status quo.

Sure, the logic is kind of bunk: obviously, you don't respond to aggression by returning to status quo. You dismantle the aggressor's war machine, and an occupation is the means for ensuring that happens. But I can see why there's a warmonger penalty for reasons of game balance.

 

[AriochIV]

The whole idea of a "warmongering penalty" is really a post-industrial concept. In medieval and renaissance Europe, and in much of the world, going to war periodically was considered the normal state of things. Prior to the Modern era, if you have a valid casus belli, the subject of your aggression can reasonably be expected to dislike you for it, but other nations (except the most pacifistic, or those with close ties to the ) should have literally zero problem with you. This notion that the entire world rises up to denounce aggression is modernistic nonsense when applied to most of history.

It also breaks the diplomacy game, so it's both bad history and bad gameplay.

It might help to stop using the catch-all term "warmongering" to apply to every use of force. It's inaccurate, misleading, and irritating.

 

[Matte979]

One question does the warmonger penalty scale with speed?

I am playing on EPIC so maybe that why for me the -24 I get to grab a city goes away in 24 turns so no big deal if I am just patient and before I declare I make sure I have as many positive thing going as possible with my friends to offset most of the hit, and when I get to around -10 I start repairing relations with those civs. I do make sure I never declare war without some kind of casus belli so only get moderate penalty in later ages.

You just cant declare war in later ages without causes belli or your relations will take a very very long time ro repair and the game might be over before you do specially if the penalty does not scale and your on quick or standard speed.

And some civilization are lost causes which is fine, specially does where you don't match their agendas.

Next game study all the modifiers and it will be easier to get away with wars and city conquest.

One other tip. CIVs will only denounce you for a war if the relations have deteriorated to a certain point or their Agenda is against war.

 

[rkade8583]

I don't even bother with diplomacy now. Since I main Sumeria, I just build a little infrastructure, a few war carts, and proceed to own my own continent.

 

[Big J Money]

One question does the warmonger penalty scale with speed?

Or more generally "do all diplo modifiers scale with speed"? That's easy to test. Just send a trade route to someone's city. On standard speed, that's a +2.

So I've been thinking about this whole "invisible hit points" thing, and I think a really simple fix to this would be to perform one stage of conversion before applying damage. The devs could tweak this curve however they like. Here's an example of a linear curve:

Every 5 points of modifier causes 1 point of HP loss or gain. So if I'm at -20, it's not -20 per turn, it's only -4.

I believe this would reduce the extreme shifts. And a steeper curve might work even better.

This entire system should be more transparently exposed in the UI though. What we're seeing now is just as misleading as it is helpful.

 

[pietro1990]

The whole idea of a "warmongering penalty" is really a post-industrial concept. In medieval and renaissance Europe, and in much of the world, going to war periodically was considered the normal state of things. Prior to the Modern era, if you have a valid casus belli, the subject of your aggression can reasonably be expected to dislike you for it, but other nations (except the most pacifistic, or those with close ties to the ) should have literally zero problem with you. This notion that the entire world rises up to denounce aggression is modernistic nonsense when applied to most of history.

It also breaks the diplomacy game, so it's both bad history and bad gameplay.

It might help to stop using the catch-all term "warmongering" to apply to every use of force. It's inaccurate, misleading, and irritating.

The problem with this game is that. medieval and renaissance era have to much warmonger penalties

i tempted to make a mod where it removes warmonger penaltie in the renaissance and medieval and increases it in industrial era.

 

[EwMatias]

The whole idea of a "warmongering penalty" is really a post-industrial concept. In medieval and renaissance Europe, and in much of the world, going to war periodically was considered the normal state of things. Prior to the Modern era, if you have a valid casus belli, the subject of your aggression can reasonably be expected to dislike you for it, but other nations (except the most pacifistic, or those with close ties to the ) should have literally zero problem with you. This notion that the entire world rises up to denounce aggression is modernistic nonsense when applied to most of history.

This is completely ahistorical. If you pay any attention to history you'll see that diplomacy was a big deal even in the ancient world, and nations were very worried about rising empires and the threat they may pose to them. Smaller powers did all they could to either make sure to be on their good graces or form aliances and coalitions to keep them in check, Preventive strikes were common, as were wars to determine who would be the domminant power in a region.

And even if "casus belli" and "just war" ARE Modern ideas, the concept that wars need some justification, even if paper thin, is ancient (as is the idea of a formal declaration). And people were always aware that those justifications were often paper thin, so they took them with a grain of salt. That's the point of warmongering penalties. The A.I. is worried that they might be next, as they should. This is completely logical AND historical.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Preventive strikes were common, as were wars to determine who would be the domminant power in a region.

And even if "casus belli" and "just war" ARE Modern ideas, the concept that wars need some justification, even if paper thin, is ancient (as is the idea of a formal declaration). And people were always aware that those justifications were often paper thin, so they took them with a grain of salt. That's the point of warmongering penalties. The A.I. is worried that they might be next, as they should. This is completely logical AND historical.

If you're looking for an equivalent in the game to war waged against rising powers, such as when the Etruscans invaded the Roman Kingdom and Rupublic over and over for 100s of years, accurately and presciently sensing that failure to conquer Rome spelled out their eventual doom, it's in civ: it's called invading the nearby player with the intention of wiping them out, and the AI can already do this.

It has nothing to do with the warmongering penalty being discussed in this thread, which is the system of denouncing bad actors on a global stage by appealing to moralistic standards that seek to uphold balance of power, and has no historical application to the pre-Enlightenment world.

Pre-Industrial states did not obey the rule of law in their own borders (the state could not be bound by law) and certainly would have looked nonsensical gossiping about the flaunting of law of other states invading third parties. When pre-industrial did issue "on paper" justifications for their wars, these were directed only at their own citizens, the proles and business class who would be shedding blood and taxes for the war. It was a tool of propaganda, or more fundamentally of legitimizing internally directed expansions of state reach, a goal which the true reasons of "elite greed" and "existential fear of neighbor strength" did not serve.

Proschema (plural proschemata) is the equivalent Greek term, first popularized by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War. The proschemata are the stated reasons for waging war, which may or may not be the same as the real reasons, which Thucydides called prophasis (πρóφασις). Thucydides argued that the three primary real reasons for waging war are reasonable fear, honor, and interest, while the stated reasons involve appeals to nationalism or fearmongering (as opposed to descriptions of reasonable, empirical causes for fear).

 

[EwMatias]

If you're looking for an equivalent in the game to war waged against rising powers, such as when the Etruscans invaded the Roman Kingdom and Rupublic over and over for 100s of years, accurately and presciently sensing that failure to conquer Rome spelled out their eventual doom, it's in civ: it's called invading the nearby player with the intention of wiping them out, and the AI can already do this.

It has nothing to do with the warmongering penalty being discussed in this thread, which is the system of denouncing bad actors on a global stage by appealing to moralistic standards that seek to uphold balance of power, and has no historical application to the pre-Enlightenment world.

Conflict with the Etruscan, Gauls nad other Italic peoples are like you say akin to fighting with your neighbor's for resourses. I was thinking more along the lines of the Punic and Macedonian Wars. In the First Macedonian War, Hanibal convinced Phillip to help him by pointing the growing power and influence of Rome and how that posed a threat to his own power and influence, and subsequently Rome got Greek city states to help them because everyone knew of Phillip's imperial ambitions. In the Second Macedonian War, Rome was called in to help by Pergamon, and Rome entered the war because they thought Macedon was a threat to them.

There's no moralisticstandard, people all through out history HATED the instability of constant war. No one wanted to be the next to be conquered, so they continually tried to, yes, shift the balance of power to avoid it. No one ever liked an expansionist empire, they were always at least cautious about them. It's not like there was no diplomacy until Bismarck came up with the alliance system...

 

[nokmirt]

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

At least with BNW you could play for a conquest victory. In the new game it is no fun to try. The only way to do it is be ahead in military tech. Which is easy because the AI has trouble upgrading units. The thing that aggravates me is later game wars. If you declare one diplomacy is over for you. You end up being the most infamous person alive. Worse than Hitler, because even Hitler had allies who thought as he did. In Civ 6 after declaring a late game war, you are on your own. Even the bad guys on the map hate you. It really sucks at the moment. And I say this liking the game, but I don't want to have to be a passive good guy all the time or else. That is just no fun.

 

[GhostSalsa]

There's no moralisticstandard, people all through out history HATED the instability of constant war. No one wanted to be the next to be conquered, so they continually tried to, yes, shift the balance of power to avoid it. No one ever liked an expansionist empire, they were always at least cautious about them. It's not like there was no diplomacy until Bismarck came up with the alliance system...

I think we're on the same page now - but people in all states of history have liked whatever type of empire they sense is going to be the winner. Rome's citizens, whatever level of power or subjugation they lived with, were happy if the next war was going to be won. Even while most Patrician families fell out of status within a few generations, they perpetuated the social system that granted them no stability, because Rome won wars. The Protectorate gentry executed monarchists until the second they were all monarchists themselves, and parades lined London, until the moment when everyone realized Charles II couldn't command England, or his own lust, or win wars. People are miserable always, but what they hate most is a government that can't smack the other guy down.

But back to Causus Belli, it is an inappropriate and ahistorical mechanism to apply in civ for early game diplomacy. If we want something that makes the game balanced, it should be based on assigning extra benefits and consequence to alliance, and that is it.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

The whole idea of a "warmongering penalty" is really a post-industrial concept. In medieval and renaissance Europe, and in much of the world, going to war periodically was considered the normal state of things. Prior to the Modern era, if you have a valid casus belli, the subject of your aggression can reasonably be expected to dislike you for it, but other nations (except the most pacifistic, or those with close ties to the ) should have literally zero problem with you. This notion that the entire world rises up to denounce aggression is modernistic nonsense when applied to most of history.

It also breaks the diplomacy game, so it's both bad history and bad gameplay.

It might help to stop using the catch-all term "warmongering" to apply to every use of force. It's inaccurate, misleading, and irritating.

This, times a million. How most people playing (and making!) the game do not get this I cannot understand

 

[AriochIV]

That's the point of warmongering penalties. The A.I. is worried that they might be next, as they should. This is completely logical AND historical.

Denouncing a dangerous power and refusing to trade or conduct diplomatic relations with it does not deter aggression, it encourages it. A vulnerable nation that fears a more powerful one should be careful and polite, not insolent, threatening and insulting. It's completely ass-backwards.

 

[NukeAJS]

I think Civ6 has a similar problem to Civ5. I don't think the problem is that you become a pariah from declaring war, it's that your pariah status lasts forever.

Seriously, it should wear down after awhile. It would make the game more fun AND have the coincidence of being realistic. Germany and Japan still have some animosity from the WW2, but in my experience, it's mostly societal, not very strong, and usually small groups of people.

 

[Plus Ultra]

While the diplomatic system certainly requires tweaking, and warmongering penalties are indeed too severe even when there is a casus belli in place, I have found it easy enough to manipulate the AI to become friendly if I really try.

As I've posted in other, similar threads, I think one of the issues here is we are simply not used to factoring in the AI's reaction during our decision making process.

We've all started changing our playstyle to get as many Eurekas/Inspirations as possible, right? but I'm sure most of us are still completely ignoring what the AI likes/needs and expecting them to like us anyway.

For those willing to try it out, I've been doing the following in my last two games:

-Declare as many wars as you like and generally don't worry much about what the AI thinks during Ancient era.
-During Ancient Era, watch closely the AI's reactions in order to figure out their hidden agendas.
-Decide, during Classical Era, which Civs you would like to Ally with in the future. I recommend choosing those whose agendas fits your strategy.
-Send your future Allies trade delegations whenever possible, as many times as you can afford.
-Make sure you are always following their agendas.
-Trade, trade, trade. Even if the trade deal is not always ideal. Renew those trade deals when they finish, always have some sort of trade deal with each of your future allies.
-Always fullfill promises.
-Create an embassy everywhere as soon as they are available.
-Use Casus Belli when declaring a war, liberating city states helps reduce your warmongering penalty a lot.
-Keep asking for a declaration of friendship.
-Once friendly, keep asking for alliance.

Good luck

 

[criZp]

Why do you need friends so bad?

Because teaming up with some guy(s) against some other dudes is ten time smore fun than having to fight off everyone all alone

, declaring wars without reason or taking cities should make the AI upset.

The AI is completely incapable of figuring out if there's a legit reason for war or not

 

[pietro1990]

I think Civ6 has a similar problem to Civ5. I don't think the problem is that you become a pariah from declaring war, it's that your pariah status lasts forever.

Seriously, it should wear down after awhile. It would make the game more fun AND have the coincidence of being realistic. Germany and Japan still have some animosity from the WW2, but in my experience, it's mostly societal, not very strong, and usually small groups of people.

Jep ithe decay is hardly noticeble. People shouldn't be amd at you for a war at the medievel war when they are in the modern era

 

[pietro1990]

At least with BNW you could play for a conquest victory. In the new game it is no fun to try. The only way to do it is be ahead in military tech. Which is easy because the AI has trouble upgrading units. The thing that aggravates me is later game wars. If you declare one diplomacy is over for you. You end up being the most infamous person alive. Worse than Hitler, because even Hitler had allies who thought as he did. In Civ 6 after declaring a late game war, you are on your own. Even the bad guys on the map hate you. It really sucks at the moment. And I say this liking the game, but I don't want to have to be a passive good guy all the time or else. That is just no fun.

Its just frustrating that its either be passive or be total agressive... there is no way between. i like to role play and i am not a warmonger i just declare war one time against someone that annoyed me. Or if they atacked my allies to much.

 

[Big J Money]

I think you have some great ideas. There are some things to watch out for.

-Declare as many wars as you like and generally don't worry much about what the AI thinks during Ancient era.

Evidence is stacking that diplo modifiers are DOT. So not caring about what looks like a measly -5 throughout the Ancient era could mean, what, -250 diplomacy value? By the time you decide to get that up to +1, you'll be too late to have them on friendly terms until much later in the game. So I think it still behooves caution and politeness early one, and still only go to war against people you expect not to be friends with until much later or never.

-Use Casus Belli when declaring a war, liberating city states helps reduce your warmongering penalty a lot.

Again with the DOT... there is a curve we haven't identified, but we can once someone will come in here with a table of all the warmonger penalties. But at some level of penalty, all penalties are effectively as bad as "Egregious". This means only the very best Casus Belli's actually work. I imagine if it's not patched we will mod it easily in a community balance patch, as well as add a tooltip to each penalty name (Egregious, etc) to show the value it will give.

Example: I believe it's only the 2nd level of penalty that is -16. That might seem okay right? But like it's been pointed out, if you go from 0 to -16, you will end up with a -136 value in the end.

-Keep asking for a declaration of friendship.
-Once friendly, keep asking for alliance.

This hasn't been mentioned yet, but there is another problem here. A civ's relation to you isn't the only thing that affects whether they will avoid war and play nice. You can still be backstabbed, or sometimes people will simply reject these offers (I often have friendly civs reject DOF!). So there is a missing piece that it would be nice if we could discover. I feel like whatever it is, there should be some level of intelligence which the player can find out what the chance is that an AI will go to war with you and WHY.

Good luck

Thanks you too