Warmonger penalty calculation formula?

[Magean]

Bayeeeete,

I was wondering, what are the variables taken into account in the calculation of the warmonger penalty in the mod ? And, even better, what's the formula?

I know that in Vanilla BNW, the variables are:
-number of cities of the player losing a city
-size of the conquered city (not sure)
-total number of cities on the map
-map size
-sensitivity to warmongering: Attila will not be as upset as Gandhi if X trounces Y
-era (since the farewell patch released two years ago)

EDIT : also, what are the requirements for the penalty to exist in the first place ? If X conquers a city from Y and Z has met only X, will Z judge X for its warmongering or not ? What if Z has only met Y ? And does Z have to know the existence of the city (having it on its map) ? What if Z is also at war with Y ? Does a Declaration of Friendship impact the penalty ?

Thanks for any indication !

 

[Enginseer]

The penalty will always exist, but only for known civs. They indicate the warmonger penalty when you conquer a city. If you have CSD, they have a setting on how affected they are when you conquer a city-state under their protection and such (diplo penalty rather than warmonger penalty). If Civ X hate Civ Y, but you just conquered a city from Civ Y, Civ X would likely not get as upset(mildy upset) compared to Civ Z who might be friend(greatly upset) with Civ Y. Usually friends may overlook your warmongering unless their willingness to backstab is high(Looking at you Cathy)...

 

[Gazebo]

Bayeeeete,

Clearly Shaka in disguise, don't tell him warmonger secrets!

 

[matlajs]

pchaaaa

 

[Zares]

It should be less/none penalty for capturing a City of Civ, who declared war at player. They wanted war, so why should I be punished for the war that I didn't want?

 

[Magean]

It should be less/none penalty for capturing a City of Civ, who declared war at player. They wanted war, so why should I be punished for the war that I didn't want?

This is a shortcoming of the rudimentary system of Civ V which lacks casus belli a la EU4 to define the scope of a war; apparently Civ VI is moving in that direction. Yes, they attacked you in the first place, so other nations should be more tolerant toward your retaliations. But at the same time, if they DoW'd because you were a terrible neighbor settling right next to them while sending spies and missionaries on their cities, and you answered with a total takeover, then it's disproportionate and not morally OK. Plus, from a cold-blooded realpolikal point of view, you're showing your strength, your ability to grow and upset the status; hence, you're a potential threat.

Bottom line: it's extremely difficult to find a middle ground between acceptable retribution and opportunistic expansion threatening the rest of the world.

 

[Gazebo]

It should be less/none penalty for capturing a City of Civ, who declared war at player. They wanted war, so why should I be punished for the war that I didn't want?

That's how it works. I think the reduction is 20%.