Warmonger penalties and Casus Belli doesn't work

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.
Only if you consider yourself the weaker power, with no hope. Feeling threatened doesn't mean to be subserviently scared.

Denounciation is not the same as warmonger penalties. The A.I. denounces you when they hate you, and that may have nothing to do with your warmongering. Denounciation is a game mechanic that serves the purpose of a formal declaration of hostilities, something that, again, is ancient. In reality it may have taken many forms, like demanding tribute, a token of earth and water, making an ultimatum, or other demands. Since this is a game, we have all of that abstracted as denouncing.
 
Diplo penalties definitely need to be fixed in many areas, but I did want to share an instance where it actually worked as advertised.

I was Germany with many production houses going full bore, in large part due to my suzerian over Toronto, when Scythia went on a city state rampage and swallowed up 3 in short order (including Toronto). Naturally I could not let this stand, but I waited patiently for the civic that allows for CB for liberating allies. Once that hit, I was able to use the CB (it showed with 'Warmonger penalty: None'). After wiping out her horde of classical non-upgraded horsemen (sigh), I liberated two of the three city states (most importantly Toronto) and she gave me the third CS in the peace deal (which I kept, with no WM penalty). I didn't touch any of her base cities. After the war, I had +5 modifiers with all civs (even Scythia) for liberation and zero warmongering penalties.

So in that particular case it worked well. Side note: It would be nice to have a diplomatic option to react when someone is attacking your suz'd city states, or options like CiV "Toronto is under attack and would appreciate you sending troops"

But don't get me started on civs that bribe you to go to joint war then suddenly hate you for doing so. There also needs to be an account of 'when' a war when declared as opposed to when it ends...I was at war with England that she started in Ancient era that I took back to her cities, but because I didn't get to her territory until the next era (it took a while to slay the horde of warriors), I was getting WM penalties for taking her cities. (PSA: England as bad/worse then Monty so far in my games for early aggro)
 
There also needs to be an account of 'when' a war when declared as opposed to when it ends...I was at war with England that she started in Ancient era that I took back to her cities, but because I didn't get to her territory until the next era (it took a while to slay the horde of warriors), I was getting WM penalties for taking her cities.

I think that's a good thing. It means if you want any free benefits from an Ancient War then you need to plan ahead and make it happen. I'm not convinced the penalties themselves are balanced, though.
 
That's my point. You can't let war be a reactive thing. If you want spoils of war, you need to plan ahead and decide to go to war for yourself. Otherwise you need to just be happy that you got away with defending yourself effectively, since you didn't get anything else out of it.

I.E. You should have started it bro ;)
 
you need to just be happy that you got away with defending yourself effectively

oddly enough, that doesn't make me happy

I did feel good crushing her for the insult, regardless of diplo hit. Was just mildly annoyed that I was penalized for a war that I didn't start just because it took a few more turns out of an era. I understand well about prepping for war and its consequences, was already finishing off Saladin at the time England rolled up.
 
Top Bottom