What exactly does the warmonger penalty do to you aside from the diplomacy hit? Unless it directly involve to your civ's growth, it's weird to me that people make a big deal about some number.
What exactly does the warmonger penalty do to you aside from the diplomacy hit? Unless it directly involve to your civ's growth, it's weird to me that people make a big deal about some number.
And lastly, there was a real problem in BNW where some bully attacks you and not only do you repel him, you go take some cities, and you get just as large a diplo hit (or bigger) than the aggressor.
The era penalties/forgiveness will matter greatly. Particularly if it's a raiding war, i.e. no cities exchanged, how will that affect you in the next eras.
The main cause of concern would be how difficult it would prove to have friends or allies after making a war or two of aggression/expansion. It's not "I want to kill everyone around me one by one while they stand back and watch", it's more like "yes I conquered a Civ back in the medieval era, but it's the modern era now, surly there are other concerns that outweigh that".
Agreed on that. Seems like you should have leeway when attacked.
Looking at previous page, that's not the impression I'm getting to be honest. It's like he want to be rewarded for being a warmonger, and people should want to be his friend because he's going around waging war for no reason, which I don't understand.
Could be just me hating to play the war game in Civ, but I don't see what's wrong with Civ6's current method regarding warmonger penalty. If anything I wish they could be a bit more complex like EU4 which requires me to considering other aspect more before pressing that Declare War button than just looking at army power.
You hate it, other people love it. What's wrong is that with too much warmonger penalties, those who love the war game can't play it properly. The devs seem to try to steer everyone into one style of playing. That's bad.Could be just me hating to play the war game in Civ, but I don't see what's wrong with Civ6's current method regarding warmonger penalty. If anything I wish they could be a bit more complex like EU4 which requires me to considering other aspect more before pressing that Declare War button than just looking at army power.
We still don't know everything. The penalty for declaring seems very harsh, even if you halve it with a formal war. If more penalty is added on that from taking cities, then conquering an 8 city neighbor would make it quite impossible to get along with anyone.
There has always also been nations that aim to remain neutral and stay out of any conflicts. And very often nations that choose to join the aggressor. What we saw in the video was an equal warmonger penalty from everyone, regardless of what the civ's relationship to the target was.Napoleon and some guy related indirectly to Godwin did try to conquer everything in sight and as a result were indeed extremely impopular and unable to make any friends toward the end.
There has always also been nations that aim to remain neutral and stay out of any conflicts. And very often nations that choose to join the aggressor. What we saw in the video was an equal warmonger penalty from everyone, regardless of what the civ's relationship to the target was.
I agree that there should be some penalty, but to be hated by every leader in the world for wiping out one civ in the medieval era would be too extreme and completely unrealistic. Especially if those modifiers still apply one thousand years later, which we don't know yet.
So in Civ V, most of the warmongering penalty came from actually taking cities (not declaring war).
Do we know how that's going to work in CIV 6? Clearly if you declare a war of liberation and then sack their capital you'll get major penalties. But if you declare say a holy war, or formal war, do you get additional warmonger penalties on top of that for capturing cities?
If you return the city in the way to it's owner at the end of the war when the objective is complete, your penalty is reduced.
Spoiler :
I hope that you are right. That the system indeed is redesigned and that you are able to be land hungry bad mofo just you need to make sure you avoid huge penalties and design allows this by declaring wars in different ways and for different reasons. But somehow -12 for formal (if i'm not mistaken) seems high, but i hope you are right that civ vi will be nothing like civ v when it comes to warmongering.
That's cool, so we could take cities without making peace to keep cities(less efficeint bcs occupied) and have medium warmonger penalty - Permanent war=less warmonger penalty?Warmongering penalties for city capture are ultimately handled at the end of the war under peace terms. Capturing a city will tell you the relative warmonger hit you'll take if you keep or raze the city, and then it explains that the penalty for capture may double or be reset to zero at the end of the war.
Spoiler :
That's cool, so we could take cities without making peace to keep cities(less efficeint bcs occupied) and have medium warmonger penalty - Permanent war=less warmonger penalty?
Well
1. the occupied cities are less productive
2. You may have war weariness increasing in permanent war
From the video yesterday, for 1) you get the same exact warmonger penalty from B. Qin was warring with Teddy, then Ed surprise attacked Qin, and he got the same enormous penalty from everybody he met, includingthe ungrateful bastardTeddy