Warmonger Penalties On The Same City

[Gidoza]

Considering one particular situation here, I'm wondering if Warmonger penalties could be applied in a limited fashion on cities that are being captured and recaptured on both sides a multitude of times?

The issue: Someone declares on me; I fight back, and one particular city is a nuisance: I take it, and he re-takes it. But each time I take it, my Warmonger penalty with all other civilizations increases, and increases, and increases...

It seems to be that the Warmonger "penalty" of capturing a city would somehow be implied within the possibility of a city's changing sides during a war. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's a stacking Liberation bonus for re-taking it each time (it would be odd for everyone to think you less of a Warmonger for freeing your own city).

The Suggestion: A Warmonger penalty only applies once per city per war; or perhaps it can re-apply again every 10 turns or so. The same goes for Liberation bonuses if the same implication occurred somehow (e.g. freeing a City-State city multiple times if someone else has captured it and is re-capturing it).

Thoughts?

 

[PurpleMentat]

On the flip side, you acted as an aggressor in a war you didn't start. When the occupying forces were kicked out, they came back with reinforcements. Every time, they sack the city, more civilians die, and the countryside is reduced to a wartorn wasteland, all because you kept fighting for the city. I think repeated warmonger penalties for taking the same city over and over make sense.

 

[Zanteogo]

I personally would like to see less warmonger gained for taking cities who you have influence over. After all, less buildings are being destroyed and less people are dying (they basically welcome you in at the highest level)

 

[Gidoza]

*shrug* I'm not the aggressor if I've warned someone not to settle near me, he does by putting a city in the middle of my empire right next to my capital, and then declares war on me. Any leader with an ounce of intelligence would know that he's asking for it.

Besides the point, though. Civilians are dying during a city occupation and resistance as well - capturing and recapturing a city simply makes for an extended occupation. Since the game has no way to recognize the notion of "two armies in a city at once" (which is a perfectly standard war phenomenon), the alternative is to treat the matter as a single invasion, which makes by far the most sense.

To give a different example - if I Liberate a CS while there are four Corvettes surrounding it and a half dozen other units within its borders, have I really liberated it? Liberation needs have have some mark of permanency to really be called liberation, else what kind of fools are these who are celebrating their freedom for a day before they all get killed from the outside? No, the same city battle is still on - the liberation has not occurred just yet.

 

[TeeInKay]

I simply do not capture a city until it is assured that I can keep it. Certainly this would eliminate your difficulties.

 

[Funak]

I simply do not capture a city until it is assured that I can keep it. Certainly this would eliminate your difficulties.

That's what you're supposed to do

 

[Gidoza]

I simply do not capture a city until it is assured that I can keep it. Certainly this would eliminate your difficulties.

Bad argument. I can delete all my warmonger penalties by freeing a City-State and then intentionally let it get captured again and again. I am quite confident that this is not how the liberation mechanic was intended and can be rightfully called an exploit; conversely, it is also not how the warmonger penalty was intended and can rightfully be called a design flaw.

This is also all besides the fact that I can just exploit an AI by planting a city in a place where it can be forcefully exchanged, just to make HIS Warmonger penalties go up so everybody hates him.

 

[Gazebo]

Warmonger scales up and down based on whether or not you've owned the city before.

G

 

[Gidoza]

Warmonger scales up and down based on whether or not you've owned the city before.

G

Okay that makes sense - but should I be able to exploit AI's by using the mechanic to destroy their reputation or totally remove all of my own Warmonger penalties through CS liberation?

 

[Gazebo]

Okay that makes sense - but should I be able to exploit AI's by using the mechanic to destroy their reputation or totally remove all of my own Warmonger penalties through CS liberation?

If that's how you want to spend your time, I guess.
Edit: to clarify, I'm not sure what methodology is intended by this conversation to prevent this. What's the end goal, here?

G

 

[Gidoza]

The end goal I'm looking for is where liberation/warmonger exploitation is impossible, and where liberation/warmonger penalties properly reflect one's overall aggression and warmongering. Even with the reduced scale for the same city as you said, I feel that city wars are not properly reflecting one's warmonger status. My suggestion to amend this is that warmonger/liberation penalties/bonuses are still reduced as now if re-taking the same city, but that this re-application does not even occur until 10 turns have passed whereby the owner has maintained control of said city for that duration of time.

 

[Gazebo]

The end goal I'm looking for is where liberation/warmonger exploitation is impossible, and where liberation/warmonger penalties properly reflect one's overall aggression and warmongering. Even with the reduced scale for the same city as you said, I feel that city wars are not properly reflecting one's warmonger status. My suggestion to amend this is that warmonger/liberation penalties/bonuses are still reduced as now if re-taking the same city, but that this re-application does not even occur until 10 turns have passed whereby the owner has maintained control of said city for that duration of time.

I'll just set it so that you don't take warmonger or gain liberation for a city where you were the last person to own it. So conquering cities the first time will get you the penalty, but trading a city back and forth won't. I'll also add diminishing returns for liberating cities you've owned in the past (based on # of times you've owned).

G

 

[TeeInKay]

Bad argument. I can delete all my warmonger penalties by freeing a City-State and then intentionally let it get captured again and again. I am quite confident that this is not how the liberation mechanic was intended and can be rightfully called an exploit; conversely, it is also not how the warmonger penalty was intended and can rightfully be called a design flaw.

This is also all besides the fact that I can just exploit an AI by planting a city in a place where it can be forcefully exchanged, just to make HIS Warmonger penalties go up so everybody hates him.

Yeah it's a bad argument because you can decide to exploit? Honestly I support changes that prevent bad AI behavior, but intentionally seeking exploits and calling it a design flaw seems obtuse to me.

 

[PurpleMentat]

Yeah it's a bad argument because you can decide to exploit? Honestly I support changes that prevent bad AI behavior, but intentionally seeking exploits and calling it a design flaw seems obtuse to me.

I disagree with this sentiment. If something is allowed by the game rules, it shouldn't be considered an exploit. If you start considering these things exploits, the line gets really blurry and shifts around from player to player. One person's 'exploit' is another person's 'leveraging mechanics in the most powerful possible way.'

For example, setting Focus to Production and locking high growth tiles to get extra hammers is not considered an exploit by most of the vanilla community, just smart play. However, Gazebo considered it an exploit, and named it such in the patch notes where it was removed.

Another example, training units by going to war with a secluded city-state. Some consider this an exploit, others consider it fair game because the AI gets 50 free XP and 50% faster XP gain on high difficulty. Some think that wiping out an AI's army and pillaging all their improvements to get them to give you Warmonger-free cities in a peace deal to be an exploit, while some see it as the only way you should ever conquer a city.

 

[Gidoza]

I disagree with this sentiment. If something is allowed by the game rules, it shouldn't be considered an exploit. If you start considering these things exploits, the line gets really blurry and shifts around from player to player. One person's 'exploit' is another person's 'leveraging mechanics in the most powerful possible way.'

For example, setting Focus to Production and locking high growth tiles to get extra hammers is not considered an exploit by most of the vanilla community, just smart play. However, Gazebo considered it an exploit, and named it such in the patch notes where it was removed.

Another example, training units by going to war with a secluded city-state. Some consider this an exploit, others consider it fair game because the AI gets 50 free XP and 50% faster XP gain on high difficulty. Some think that wiping out an AI's army and pillaging all their improvements to get them to give you Warmonger-free cities in a peace deal to be an exploit, while some see it as the only way you should ever conquer a city.

I guess you can't solve everything, but the scenario in question is one I see along the lines of how AI units used to be unable to move and attack with units in the same turn. Shall we then decide that we won't move and attack on the same turn as well? Should it be not allowed to attack with a range-e unit because I can back up and shoot every turn? This would be a ridiculous way of playing the game. Similarly, there's times when I am legit trading a CS with an opponent and have no desire to exploit the system, but it's worth liberating the CS simply because I can.

The scenarios you're describing require a much more deliberate action and are more along the lines of "intelligent play" than "exploitation". In a human VS human scenario, you expect another human to be efficient with production and food. You also expect another human to not care in the slightest about warmonger status, because humans see the big picture. I think that streamlining some of the penalties/bonuses of capturing/liberating in this particular case will make the AI's "bigger picture" a touch more accurate.

 

[PurpleMentat]

I guess you can't solve everything, but the scenario in question is one I see along the lines of how AI units used to be unable to move and attack with units in the same turn. Shall we then decide that we won't move and attack on the same turn as well? Should it be not allowed to attack with a range-e unit because I can back up and shoot every turn? This would be a ridiculous way of playing the game. Similarly, there's times when I am legit trading a CS with an opponent and have no desire to exploit the system, but it's worth liberating the CS simply because I can.

The scenarios you're describing require a much more deliberate action and are more along the lines of "intelligent play" than "exploitation". In a human VS human scenario, you expect another human to be efficient with production and food. You also expect another human to not care in the slightest about warmonger status, because humans see the big picture. I think that streamlining some of the penalties/bonuses of capturing/liberating in this particular case will make the AI's "bigger picture" a touch more accurate.

We seem to be talking about two different things. "We shouldn't do it because the AI won't do it" is a terrible rabbit hole to start down. It basically ends with removing player agency and making the AI unbeatable. The only reason anyone wins on difficulty above Warlord is we don't play the game the same way the AI does. So, that whole line of thinking should be discarded. The AI does not exist to be a human analog, they exist to provide an interesting and fun challenge to the human.

 

[Gazebo]

This is a wee bit irrelevant of a discussion now, as the 'exploit' has been patched out. Now it's just a matter of whether or not my patch fixed the problem.

G

 

[Gidoza]

We seem to be talking about two different things. "We shouldn't do it because the AI won't do it" is a terrible rabbit hole to start down. It basically ends with removing player agency and making the AI unbeatable. The only reason anyone wins on difficulty above Warlord is we don't play the game the same way the AI does. So, that whole line of thinking should be discarded. The AI does not exist to be a human analog, they exist to provide an interesting and fun challenge to the human.

My point was that in Vanilla Civ, even massive bonuses wasn't enough to help the AI overcome horrible design flaws. It makes no sense to still allow more. :/

Anyways, yeah, the matter is fixed. Thanks, Gazebo!

 

[apocalypse105]

On the flip side, you acted as an aggressor in a war you didn't start. When the occupying forces were kicked out, they came back with reinforcements. Every time, they sack the city, more civilians die, and the countryside is reduced to a wartorn wasteland, all because you kept fighting for the city. I think repeated warmonger penalties for taking the same city over and over make sense.

Even if it is youre own city that you recapture.. yep so broken is this warmonger penalty it gives the player a penalty for capturing their own cities back

 

[zxcvbob]

Even if it is youre own city that you recapture.. yep so broken is this warmonger penalty it gives the player a penalty for capturing their own cities back

I don't think there's any diplomatic penalty for liberating your own city (you founded it. Or bought it.)

BTW, I think if someone DOW's you and you repel them, you should be able to capture one of their cities (even their capital) w/o any penalty at all -- unless it's their only city, then it's only a minor penalty instead of major or extreme. They shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish.