Warmonger penalties so far

[Magil]

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.

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".

There could be mitigating factors we aren't aware of, which is why I would phrase it as a concern rather than a huge problem. For example, if warmonger penalties decayed over time, it might be more reasonable.

 

[Nick31]

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.

 

[rastak]

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.

Agreed on that. Seems like you should have leeway when attacked.

 

[DSveno]

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".

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.

 

[Ebrim]

Agreed on that. Seems like you should have leeway when attacked.

You do, even in Civ V. If you are the defender in a war then the warmonger penalty for taking cities from the attacking civ are less than if you were the attacker. It does mean, however, that even as the defender if you try and radically alter the balance of power other civs are going to get concerned - which makes perfect sense.

 

[Magil]

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.

That wouldn't be my point of view, but I can at least understand it. Keep in mind that Civilization is a 4X game. Expand, explore, exploit, exterminate. See anything about diplomacy in there? That's by design. This is a game where only one player can win. Alliances can never truly be more than an alliance of convenience or otherwise pure realpolitik, because there is no joint victory (well, ever since permanent alliances fell by the wayside as a game mechanic). Given that, it's natural that some people who play this game are not all that interested in the diplomatic aspects of it. This is why I don't feel like it's good to compare to Paradox Grand Strategy games, where there is less emphasis on winning (I've only played Crusader Kings II which had no actual victory condition, I understand EU4 is the same) and more emphasis on diplomacy.

This is exacerbated by the fact that the AI is not programmed to be a true competitor for victory. Yes, they can win the game, but they're not programmed to win at all costs. They are more obstacles than opponents. They are challenges, not players. They are a system to be interacted with. From that perspective also, maybe it's easier to understand the position that the AI shouldn't necessarily hate you just because you're a conquering menace.

Me, I'm personally more indifferent in that regard (though I feel like relationships between the nations in question should factor more heavily into warmongering penalties, more than the whole "surprise war" versus "formal war" versus "casus belli"). I just want to be able to conquer a rival that's trying to box me in and get a little breathing room without being hated until the end of time by the rest of the world.

 

[elitetroops]

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.

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 are questions of decay. It should definitely decay, pretty fast I hope.

 

[Vincent55]

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.

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.

If you set out to conquer the whole world, soon enough the whole world is your enemy. That's how it should be and isn't it part of the challenge? Where's the merit in conquering the world if it falls one civ at a time without putting up a real fight? That's bad on every level, be it game challenge or immersion.

Frankly, faced with a would be world conqueror, there should be a tipping point where what's left of the world should just unite, cut any diplomatic ties with the warmonger and make war non stop until one side is forced to surrender. That tipping point should be modified by the difficulty of the game.

 

[elitetroops]

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.

 

[isau]

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.

What we saw in the video was someone making an egregious gameplay mistake. If you want to declare war in that era, find a way to justify it. Or at least declare a formal war by denouncing 5 turns earlier.

 

[King Jason]

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?

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.

Which is great, really, because it didn't work like that in civ5. We took hits for city capture and didn't have a real way to wipe them. In civ6 you could have an enemy civ in between you and your friend and perhaps there's another city in the way of the enemy city that you've targeted to liberate back to your ally. So you capture both 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 :

 

[bookman_]

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 :

Wow, I never saw that screenshot before. And that mechanic is just great, it's exactly what I imagined as the best warmongering and negociation mechanic, but I ne er thought Firaxis would do something like that.
This is great, it means we finally have a reason for not razing ennemies cities you don't want.

 

[Yzman]

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.

These are diploma penalties...so how much other civ a like you. It boggles my mind that you somehow think that you shouldn't get penalized for being a jerk.

Once again, these are diploma and not necessarily war weariness or other penalties like that which would affect your ability to govern. It just means you won't have any friends...which you shouldn't.

 

[Werewolflord]

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?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

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

 

[Werewolflord]

Well
1. the occupied cities are less productive
2. You may have war weariness increasing in permanent war

yeah i forgot about war weariness that's right, we'll see how strong are these penalties

 

[isau]

I wonder if my old backhanded move of taking cities and gifting them weak AIs across the globe in order to cause conflict between everyone still works.

 

[skyclad]

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, including the ungrateful bastard Teddy

I dont know why they insist on making warmonger penalties so frakking harsh in every game now. Its like every war we start we are a certain mustachioed gentleman invading poland! The british have invaded almost every country on the planet yet have a good international diplomatic standing. I hope, if they keep these harsh penalties, at least they expire fast!

 

[beorn]

I dont know why they insist on making warmonger penalties so frakking harsh in every game now. Its like every war we start we are a certain mustachioed gentleman invading poland! The british have invaded almost every country on the planet yet have a good international diplomatic standing. I hope, if they keep these harsh penalties, at least they expire fast!

Assuming we want some level of realism:
1) It matters what era. "Being a jerk" or "Being evil" seems to have weighed far less in the past. Becoming a threat or tipping the power balance -- those are not only recent concerns. And it's my impression that sneak attacks have been looked down at least as far back as classical times, although I don't know if that's worldwide or not. In any case, becoming a threat ought to be a very big deal -- it is one of the realistic problems with extended conquest, and given weak tactical AI, the game needs realistic consequences for extended conquest.

2) But these consequences really do decay. Norway of 2016 is no longer paying any diplomatic price for the Viking attacks! European colonial powers still pay some price, but much reduced.