Warmonger penalties

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by cairnsy44, Nov 14, 2013.

  1. cairnsy44

    cairnsy44 Gooner - first class

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    627
    Location:
    Vermont
    I don't go warmongering as a playstyle that often, as I enjoy having a steadfast ally or two. But sometimes circumstances mandate wars. You could be next to Shaka, or a rapid expansionist who keeps settling on your doorstep. just thinking a tweak to the rapid accumulation of warmonger hate one gets could be improved if you were allowed to have a mortal enemy that you could go to war with (first war free?) with reduced or no warmonger penalty, as long as you do not wipe out the civ. Honestly, when you have a very annoying neighbor and you let them live (particularly in close quarters) you are going to have to deal with them again...I wonder if this would be a compromise for those who feel warmongering's penalties accumulate too fast. Feel free to hack the idea to pieces...
     
  2. crusader01

    crusader01 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    If you go warmonger, better kill all, then get delared of war from all, then kill all :D.

    If you want to spare the lives of some beaten Civ, you have to maintain some unit to watch out when they gathered forces to war again with you. Surely this time you need some fortress.
     
  3. Ninakoru

    Ninakoru A deity on Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    658
    Location:
    Madrid, Spain, Europe
    Yeah, it's too severe. There are several threads about this warmonger hating, clear indication something is not right.

    There are two main points of view I have preceived until now:

    - The idea was good, but the penalties are too harsh, specially for early warmongering. Or a CS conquest. (I'm here)

    - Everything Firaxis devs do is great and now is how it is. If you don't like it, lower difficulty to warmonger.
     
  4. Grendeldef

    Grendeldef Trancerelic

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,685
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Finland
    I seem to be too lazy these days to be even a modest warmonger but what has bothered me from the start is that there's no significant difference on penalties based on who started the war.
    When I start a war I expected others not to appreciate me taking cities but if I'm attacked and then taking few cities it should be seen as a pre-emptive measure or compensation for previous losses and tolerated to a point.

    The other aspect that truly sucks is the over-enthusiastic CS allies. There should be some other degree than on/off war especially when AI allies are popping on human borders few turns before the actual DoW. Just repelling the attack might be an endless task so while capturing a CS there could be a force peace option or something similar.
     
  5. cairnsy44

    cairnsy44 Gooner - first class

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    627
    Location:
    Vermont
    Yeah, I read your post just after I posted mine. Wish I had seen it first so as to add to a good thread instead.

    I am a big fan of the idea of the "justified military action" in the game. I just do not know how one could implement that.
     
  6. Sturmgewher88mm

    Sturmgewher88mm Kaiser

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2013
    Messages:
    388
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    石川琉球
    Yes! If I can force a separate peace treaty with a civ's AI allies, why are CSs tied to the war status of their ally?

    Maybe when you took a CS, it should give you the option to let them keep it in exchange for peace? And they take a huge diplo hit with their ally for not protecting them, and no warmonger penalty for this.
     
  7. duckmanbro

    duckmanbro Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    Sydney, Aus
    This. I can win science/diplo/culture without dabbling in conquests (defence from DOW, yes, no forward action BY me). If I want to warmonger, I have to go all out, no other option, due to the penalties. I don't mind them being harsh so long as it's justifiable (in many cases it isn't though).

    I can't think of a way to "fix" the problem that hasn't already been mentioned hundreds of times through dozens of posts, but as the previous poster said- there needs to be some kind of justified war set up. Again, I am not brainstorming, so I have no idea of any ways to implement, but it seems reasonable.
     
  8. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,046
    ^ Justified war:

    - Baiting the AI into declaring on you, killing gobs of its units and pillaging it back into the stone age, then accepting cities as part of a peace deal.

    Capturing only the capitol before accepting the deal is optional.
     
  9. Grendeldef

    Grendeldef Trancerelic

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,685
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Finland
    A solid, standard plan but often messed up by geography especially on larger maps or by a very unfortunately located CS. Plowing through even half a dozen crap cities without capturing them is more than slightly painful.

    CS allies in war is big enough issue to have a complete revamp as the current state is just plain stupid even if one is not even planning to capture them. And as for their aggressivity in general the AI's allies are heavily into steroids while the human's allies more often than not are just enjoying the sunset or whatever. Even just a couple of simple on/off options would improve the situation quite a bit or at least make'em act more rationally.
     
  10. gaiko

    gaiko Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    225
    Yes, the real outcome of the warmonger penalty system is that the experienced player will use gamey workarounds. Such as:

    1) Don't take Major Warmonger penalty cities. Use them as target practice to up-level your range units. The limit is a zero-strength city. Hence also the warmonger penalty system further nerfs melee and buffs range.

    2) If an AI civ threatens to take a zero-strength target city, either a) hold off attacking for 1-2 turns (depending on AI civ force strength), so that their melee units will die uselessly in capture attempts, a nice way to whittle down the AI civ; or b) if their force is too big, surround the target city on all 6 sides if possible so their melee can't get through (thanks Jon's 1UPT!:().

    3) Constantly renew friendships with as many AI civs as possible, to reduce warmonger penalties. Strictly speaking, this isn't 'gamey', just a bit tedious.

    4) CS's are sacred. Once everybody invariably hates you, the CS system will be your only friend (kinda makes the Mongol UA a curse in disguise). Makes Patronage mandatory, plus any SP that leverages CS trade.

    You can also game the reverse of #2 above, by allowing a Civ AI to take the target city after you are done using it for target practice, in the hope that the warmonger penalty will tip the game against *them*. Especially a threatening warmongering AI civ. Thanks to the combination of overall happiness + science + warmonger penalties, a warmonger AI civ threatening to runaway is much easier to contain and rollback than a runaway builder AI civ.

    The strategy is to put off being the world's #1 warmonger until the last possible moment. Ive been practicing this using Austria since they have the option of peaceful annexation of CS'es, suffering only the "you're expanding too much" penalty - I assume puppeted cities add to this penalty as well as building your own. The approach is to do the classic Tradition/Liberty 4 cities speed setup (tommynt?), mixing in Patronage as the game progresses. Everything beyond this becomes a puppet, including select AI cities, but only if a) penalty is *minor* b) friendships are plentiful, and c) the city has growth potential and is geographically easy to integrate. Otherwise sell to AI civ that you want to bring into an antagonism with another, nearby AI.

    A variant could be played with Venice, and you could skip Liberty, except that you may have quite a few puppets late game, and Liberty's Wide bias attributes could come in handy then. In both cases you are likely to go with Autocracy.
     

Share This Page