Warmonger penalties are out of control

[Yzman]

So I tend to play peacefully in this game. My last game I had 3 civs that were declared friends with me. Only 1 civ in the game didn't like me, rest were neutral.

I had not been at war in this game at all. I declared a Causi Belli War that would result in a "moderate" warmonger penalty.

What happened?

I was denounced by every civ that was less than friendly with me instantly. All civs that were friendly with me bar 1, quickly moved to displeased with a turn or 2. I then got denounced by Egypt whom I had been friends and allied with most of the game. And all for what? For declaring war on China, who Egypt was already at war with and had already taken their capital.

What is the point of a just war if I would get the exact same result for just declaring a suprise war? Sure the "numbers" may be slightly different but if I get the same effect of everyone, including allies immediately denouncing me, I don't see the point of the system.

I think they need to do a few things

1. Reduce warmonger penalties for "Just Wars" SIGNIFICANTLY. As someone who rarely declares war, it really ruins it for me if when I do, it immediately ruins the game on every front.
2. Have warmonger penalties affect different civs differently. Egypt, who has been taking over China and I am allied with, should not care (as much) that I am also taking over China. Its fine that India hated me after 1 declaration, but America, who I was friends with allies at one point, who has taken out 2 other civs on their continent hates me? Really?

Basically I want the just wars to matter. If I am doing a religious war, the other civs of my religion should not care. This helps immersion into the game. I have a hard time immersing myself and building relationships with other civs when everything feels like a number and declaring war once ruins my relations for the rest of the game.

I'm not saying the opposite should happen when you can just openly take over the world. I am saying that as long as we have these neat things called just wars, how about we let players use them?

 

[gettingfat]

Feel bad for you. Unfortunately, this game is just a half-baked potato, well, may be just 40% baked. The war part is broken, diplomacy broken, naval broken, religion half-broken, espionage just cosmetic.

I miss the dangerous Montsy and Zulu, and backstabbing and flirty Cathy in civ4. Much better immersion.

 

[UWHabs]

Yeah, the AI definitely should react differently. My declared friends and allies should be less averse to me warring, whereas people who I'm already angry with should be more upset.

The penalties for taking cities should also vary heavily based on the cause and cities. Taking a size-1 city that's pressing against the border of my empire shouldn't result in a massive penalty, even if I raze it. However, taking the computer's size 20 capital or wiping them out, yeah, should cause a problem. And if the AI has the diplomatic agenda where they like you to battle a lot, they should basically have no warmonger penalty with you. As it stands now, from the mid-game onwards, it's basically impossible to war with people and have anyone like you at all.

 

[Victoria]

awww you are too sensitive, its just a computer program.
The denouncements are fairly standard, and as the eras pass even a Casus is an expensive choice.
However if you then go and look at how your ally feels about you you will likely see that overall they are still in the positive and the denouncement was just for show.

It is quite common to be denounced one turn and admired for your empire size the next or something similar.
Any warmonger penalty for a casus is likely to be at most 25 ish I would have thought unless modern +. This negative reduces by 1 point per turn. There is a difference between displeased and hates. I am displeased when my cat is sick on the floor, I soon get over it.

 

[UWHabs]

awww you are too sensitive, its just a computer program.
The denouncements are fairly standard, and as the eras pass even a Casus is an expensive choice.
However if you then go and look at how your ally feels about you you will likely see that overall they are still in the positive and the denouncement was just for show.

It is quite common to be denounced one turn and admired for your empire size the next or something similar.
Any warmonger penalty for a casus is likely to be at most 25 ish I would have thought unless modern +. This negative reduces by 1 point per turn. There is a difference between displeased and hates. I am displeased when my cat is sick on the floor, I soon get over it.

Yeah, just declaring war isn't that costly. But if you capture cities as well, it really bounces up fast.

For example, in my game, I declared against Gandhi early - surprise war, but it told me "moderate" penalty. After capturing a couple cities, I then met Pedro. So he shouldn't have started with negative points before I met him (right?). I then went and captured Gandhi's 2 final cities, both size-4ish, and after those, my warmonger penalty with Pedro was -28. And at that stage in the game, you're not getting all that many positives. I did work my way back to friends with him (15 turns later, then shared government in theocracy), so you can come back, but I shudder to think what it would have cost had I known him for my entire war with Gandhi, whether that would be enough for him to hate me forever.

 

[Squeezins]

I agree that penalties are unreasonable . For example when someone, late in the game no less, declares a surprise war on me and I fight back and have the gall to WIN and take cities suddenly I'm the bad guy? were the allies terrible for fighting the nazis? It's completely unreasonable. penalties need to be significantly reduced through all eras especially if you're not the aggressor. In that case you should basically get a free pass. also consider that warfare is just a part of civ plain and simple, the game shouldn't destroy you completely diplomatically for engaging in it. some penalty is fine, but in its current state it's practically broken.

 

[greygamer]

I agree that penalties are unreasonable . For example when someone, late in the game no less, declares a surprise war on me and I fight back and have the gall to WIN and take cities suddenly I'm the bad guy? were the allies terrible for fighting the nazis? It's completely unreasonable. penalties need to be significantly reduced through all eras especially if you're not the aggressor. In that case you should basically get a free pass. also consider that warfare is just a part of civ plain and simple, the game shouldn't destroy you completely diplomatically for engaging in it. some penalty is fine, but in its current state it's practically broken.

Well to be fair the allies gave those cities back (except for the Soviets who essentially annexed East Germany and they were hated by the West so maybe).

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I have to admit, the Casus Belli system seems a tad pointless. The penalty may be smaller but more often than not the effects of a surprise war and a casus belli war are pretty much the same. Occasionally I can keep an ally like Cleo or Trajan happy but more often than not the world hates my guts whether I use a casus belli or not.

I think there was a thread on this not that long ago. Something like "Warmonger penalty egregious: does this ever deter you?"

It'd be nice if it were easier to declare protectorate or liberation wars. "War of territorial expansion" just seems silly.

Of course for argument's sake....how many non-Americans view the US as a warmonger IRL? The number of yes replies often tend to be an eye opener for people.

 

[nzcamel]

I haven't spent much time playing the game in the last 6 weeks; just picking it up again now. And enjoying every second

I may just have a sloppy memory, but in my new game getting called out on having a different government seems much more common than it was in the past.
Did that change in my absence?

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I don't think anything has changed. Either you're civving (whatever the civic equivalent of teching is) faster or just not giving them other reasons to denounce you.

I'm not a fan of the negative hit for different governments early in the game. I preferred V's ideology setup. At that point you're in endgame and its more normal for ideological blocs to form. I don't think monarchies, merchant republic, etc. have any reason to dislike each other. Plus it just adds yet another negative modifier to a diplomacy system that already seems a little heavy on the negative modifiers to begin with.

 

[steve_indy]

I don't really have a problem with everyone hating me - whatever. However, if they want diplomacy to be interesting, the war monger system is broken. Any significant amount of war creates a war monger penalty that overwhelms every other aspect of war. That's not interesting, as it's very difficult to play without any war at all, and also not that interesting. I don't know if it needs to fade quicker with time, maybe clear out with each new era, or something. In real life, pitched enemies and even "villainous" countries clear out their reputation and become friends or well liked in historically short time periods. Realism isn't the goal necessarily, but it seems weird that my 1500 AD civ is suffering a reputational hit from a 0 AD war I had.

 

[Victoria]

.how many non-Americans view the US as a warmonger IRL?

Certainly as a Kiwi I eye the US as rather bullyish warmonger of the slippery kind. Often subversive wars so the can still claim to fly the flag of "decency".

Just looking it up it looks like the US has been in 100 official wars since independence and has been at war 93% of its lifetime and killed more than 20 million people since (not including) WWII in war. War weariness?

Naturally you will not find a full list of unofficial ones.

 

[nzcamel]

And from another Kiwi I don't view the U.S. as a war monger. No more so than any other country anyway.

Certain expectations and responsibilities come with being the biggest kid on the block (aka the sole super power) and they've been damned if they do or damned if they don't since their ascension to the throne.

Pre WWII they were hit n miss. Isolationism was a unique American thing that did keep them to themselves. Then they have also had their hypocritical forays into empire; but on a smaller scale than other nations.
Their expansion across the continent has some terrible moments atrocity wise; yet wasn't that different really to what happened in NZ etc; and from the honest pov of considering the desperation for land combined with the missmatches in both technology and expectations... it's hard to see how it would have realistically played out differently. Given humans were involved.

 

[Victoria]

.....all those little coup's they have instigated with the CI of A? Even including fiji!

...and at least in NZ we had Waitangi. There was not so much killin going on.

 

[nzcamel]

I do not agree with every move the U.S. has made. Not making any to protect the world from communism would have been a worse failure though. Like I said; damned if they do...damned if they don't.

NZ can take pride at our efforts over 175 years to right the wrongs we did ... but wrongs were still done. We were confiscating land off the Maori right up to WWII.
And we have less excuse than the others. By the time the British sought to colonise NZ they had learnt a lot from previous experiences and were very open to working with the Maori. We still managed to drop the ball in ways we shouldn't have.

 

[Victoria]

Agreed we were crap with the maoris but compared to the genocide of many nations amd our settlement is good compared to the US. But yeah we agree to differ on some things. I am not saying the US is wrong in what they have done but they sure like to go to war.

 

[nzcamel]

I am not saying the US is wrong in what they have done but they sure like to go to war.

And doesn't every scum bag drop kick dictator on the planet know it.

They could walk a little quieter...but that they are prepared to use the big stick prevents more than we will ever know. Post WWII has been relatively peaceful when compared to world history. Long may it last.

 

[greygamer]

Historically the US has had a history of propping up dictatorships, just saying.

 

[nzcamel]

Historically the US has had a history of propping up dictatorships, just saying.

Do you want to offer any context with your remark? Or any comparison with choices that other countries in similar positions have made?

 

[greygamer]

Do you want to offer any context with your remark? Or any comparison with choices that other countries in similar positions have made?

Maybe you could google it, but hey here is the first result I found
Friendly Dictators
They are friends of convenience as in they fear they will be replaced with less friendly regimes (to the US). Cuba is great example and that ended so well for the US.