Warmonger when they don't know them.

[Archon_Wing]

Well, another reason why the warmonger system is one of the worst things to happen to Civ.

So I've noticed I've been getting warmonger penalties from civs, even though they don't even know the civ I'm warring with. In fact, they're on the opposite side of the world and can't come over.

Normally you can reduce warmonger penalties by doing a joint war .... but since they don't know them, or even that I'm at war with them, it's not possible! But they do know I'm a warmonger!

Basically, I just screwed my diplomacy by going overseas and meeting people .

 

[Rosty K]

If I remember correctly, this doesn't always happen, but definitely happens when the warmongering is a part of the agenda of the civ in question. E.g. Gandhi will always know that you were warmongering even if he hasn't met any of the participants. Same for Cyrus, but he'll like you for declaring a surprise war he couldn't have known about.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Ah yes, psychic Gandhi. Ironically he was my only real ally even though he'd call me bloodthirsty (even when he agrees to Joint War...)

 

[Kyro]

@Archon_Wing

Technically you'll need to introduce yourselves at a diplomatic meeting and it'll be in the general interest of any party to find out who exactly they're exchanging diplomatic relations with.

Given that each turn in Civ can span decades it is not surprising they found out about your warmongering tendencies the very next turn and hate you for it.

Warmongering penalties aren't even really penalizing in the first place they should be far worse than the weightless denounciations you're uncomfortable with right now.

The dread of Mongolia spread deep into Europe long before they even set foot in early Russia.

 

[Archon_Wing]

True to a certain degree, but you know, the Mongols didn't have a giant ocean seperating them from Europe. People escaping west was a telltale sign. I am their only point of contact as only I have cartography.

And yes, warmongering penalties don't stop anyone from warmongering not just because nobody makes good on it. but also because it is black and white. If you get attacked multiple times and you just take one city from them, suddenly you are the bad guy.

And this is moot anyways. Basically it makes it a bad thing to explore.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

@Archon_Wing

Technically you'll need to introduce yourselves at a diplomatic meeting and it'll be in the general interest of any party to find out who exactly they're exchanging diplomatic relations with.

Given that each turn in Civ can span decades it is not surprising they found out about your warmongering tendencies the very next turn and hate you for it.

Warmongering penalties aren't even really penalizing in the first place they should be far worse than the weightless denounciations you're uncomfortable with right now.

The dread of Mongolia spread deep into Europe long before they even set foot in early Russia.

Genghis Khan spread that terror intentionally. They wanted their conquests to surrender with less trouble, and they'd do unsavory things to those who didn't while leaving some people in not-so-pristine condition (to put it mildly) alive to tell the tale. This is not a useful example for knowledge about distance warmongering in the general history of warfare.

How much did say Austria care about the Mughal conquest of India? Barely at all. Though they probably knew about the wars, that knowledge was delayed and barely worth considering from Austria's perspective.

For both historical and game purposes, getting upset over conquests on territory a player can't see is nonsensical. The only way it has any gameplay validity whatsoever just a typical check against size of the civ (IE nobody should be comfortable with a runaway, regardless of how they acquire cities).

 

[Archon_Wing]

Sup TMIT.

When coming across this issue, I was reminded of your complaints towards "you have traded with our worst enemies" in Civ 4 despite not even knowing who you are; this also feels like the AI cheating as such and probably even worse."You have declared war on someone we don't know, but screw you anyways"

What's worse is I can just avoid this by doing the warmongering and then sailing off, which is pretty unintuitive.

In reality, regardless of realism or gameplay issues, it feels more like an oversight than anything else, aka there is no intent in the first place.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I haven't forgotten about the "worst enemy map hack" of course. I'd rather Civ 6 take Civ 4's objective superior UI aspects, not nonsensical flaws that can't hold up under either historical or gameplay scrutiny. We didn't need to bring THOSE from previous games.

Civ 6 definitely needs more of Civ 4's controls and less of Civ 4's broken.

 

[Karpius]

Warmongering is definitely one area of Civ6 that I believe could use improvement. While the 'penalties' don't seem to be direct or very consequential, it can ruin any chance of diplomacy. In the late game, it seems near impossible to reduce or repair that reputation no matter how lavish the gifts you offer another leader. In time, one would expect such a reputation to fade absent any more agression. But more often than not, once they decide one is a warmonger, it tends to stay that way.

 

[Kyro]

@TheMeInTeam

They razed nearly anyone who opposed them. That kinda news doesn't spread by "intention". Why do you think they chose to spread terror if it was really more beneficial to conquer cities for themselves? Can the same be said of capturing cities in Civ 6?

If it was only as profitable as conquering ever has been in real world then sure it would be fitting for the state of diplomacy to be as you desired.

It is obviously not however. A conquering player is always the winning player so to the extent that the profitability of warmongering is unjustified to that same extent the consequences must be equally penalizing. As things are however, penalties are already non-existent. How is it that you don't question the overwhelming profitability of warmongering but choose to question its already non-penalizing diplomatic penalties?

How much did Britain care when Germamy annexed Czechoslovakia or Poland? How much did Russia care when Austria invaded Serbia? It is only right to hate warmongers especially when you know how profitable it is for them to conquer you.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

How is it that you don't question the overwhelming profitability of warmongering but choose to question its already non-penalizing diplomatic penalties?

By typing on a forum. Specifically, by pointing out that everything about this game's balance is still centered around war, just like it has been since the early 1990's. From the beginning, the civ franchise has been about military-based gameplay with some pseudo victory conditions tacked on (more over time). There has never been a single title in the main series in any patch where military was anything but the dominant option. If you conquer your enemies, any of the pseudo victory conditions are also available to you. If you can't defend yourself militarily, you can't win the pseudo victory conditions. The means of getting the military advantage and using it have changed, that reality has not. At best they can break a stalemate, but the late-game military balance makes even that unlikely (especially nukes).

Real life warmonger hate in the context of civ 6 game rules is inane, and that disconnect is a piece of the reason the AI is hot garbage at the strategic level in addition to the usual tactical ineptitude. The game is designed around conquest with some pseudo victory options for flavor, and the AI and rookie players alike get mistaken about where the game's incentives for improving victory chance lie.

I did mention historical warmonger hate, but real history is a red herring in this game. I only mentioned it to point out that despite that, it too does not favor the warmonger hate. The overwhelming majority of history covered by the game's period doesn't give a crap. For every Czechoslovakia, you have dozens of Myosores, Mamluks, Gauls, Aztec, and Inca examples...all of which are better representations of how most world civilizations reacted from 4000BC-1900AD. History is not relevant to this discussion beyond the point that it confers no justification for the AI map hacking to make crappy decisions based on poor factors.

In game terms? The person who settled 15 cities is more threatening than the guy who settled 4 and conquered 4, and by a wide margin. The game's relative position logic is non-existent, the AI will hate the 8 city nation more, engaging in game-throwing activity in a nod to some pretend piece of realism that makes no sense in the context of the game rules and probably doesn't make sense in the historical period represented, either. It's a farce, there's a good reason actual human beings don't react to "warmonger" the way the AI does, and it results in overt AI throwing...by design...all while effectively cheating to do it!

This is not a good implementation, to say the least.

 

[pgm123]

Warmonger? I hardly even know her.

I think the system has value, but its execution is poor. It should be tied to proximity--war on your borders or war with civs you're friendly with. But certain actions like razing cities should spread your infamy faster--but only to civs aware of it.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think the hate needs to be more focused. For example, declaring war on a former friend? What a traitor! Declaring war on someone that's friendly with other people. What's your problem? Coming to the defense of a CS or another civ doesn't deserve the same crap as that.

I mean it's basically like the US suddenly denouncing the UK right now and viewing them the same as Nazi Germany because they razed their capital in 1812. But let's be honest. Practicality and goals are often the key factors when it comes to business between 2 nations; morality is often just a talking point.

 

[Kyro]

By typing on a forum. Specifically, by pointing out that everything about this game's balance is still centered around war, just like it has been since the early 1990's. From the beginning, the civ franchise has been about military-based gameplay with some pseudo victory conditions tacked on (more over time). There has never been a single title in the main series in any patch where military was anything but the dominant option. If you conquer your enemies, any of the pseudo victory conditions are also available to you. If you can't defend yourself militarily, you can't win the pseudo victory conditions. The means of getting the military advantage and using it have changed, that reality has not. At best they can break a stalemate, but the late-game military balance makes even that unlikely (especially nukes).

Real life warmonger hate in the context of civ 6 game rules is inane, and that disconnect is a piece of the reason the AI is hot garbage at the strategic level in addition to the usual tactical ineptitude. The game is designed around conquest with some pseudo victory options for flavor, and the AI and rookie players alike get mistaken about where the game's incentives for improving victory chance lie.

I did mention historical warmonger hate, but real history is a red herring in this game. I only mentioned it to point out that despite that, it too does not favor the warmonger hate. The overwhelming majority of history covered by the game's period doesn't give a crap. For every Czechoslovakia, you have dozens of Myosores, Mamluks, Gauls, Aztec, and Inca examples...all of which are better representations of how most world civilizations reacted from 4000BC-1900AD. History is not relevant to this discussion beyond the point that it confers no justification for the AI map hacking to make crappy decisions based on poor factors.

In game terms? The person who settled 15 cities is more threatening than the guy who settled 4 and conquered 4, and by a wide margin. The game's relative position logic is non-existent, the AI will hate the 8 city nation more, engaging in game-throwing activity in a nod to some pretend piece of realism that makes no sense in the context of the game rules and probably doesn't make sense in the historical period represented, either. It's a farce, there's a good reason actual human beings don't react to "warmonger" the way the AI does, and it results in overt AI throwing...by design...all while effectively cheating to do it!

This is not a good implementation, to say the least.

Ahh so you admit your issue with the state of diplomacy is built on a biased presumption that Civilization is a war game first and foremost.

I'll give it to you that additional victory types only came later on in the game and that domination is by definition the strongest advantage there is with regards to competition because it removes it altogether. You have however, committed a logical fallacy by assuming that means war is the central gameplay of Civ 6.

The very option of peace being possible is completely counter-intuitive and obstructive in the context of a wargame as evidenced by the lack of such an option in the vast majority of well-known war games in the market.

No developer would include an element that severely detracts from the original gameplay just to provide additional entertainment on the sideline. All gameplay elements always work towards a common gameplay experience and never against each other.

You have no evidence to back up your claims that all other gaming conditions are secondary to war and in trying to assert that opinion without evidence you have only proven your own bias.

Civilization is a game about Civilization, all it was, is and is to come. No one said anything about war not being a part of it by the way. It's just not the whole of it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

biased presumption that Civilization is a war game first and foremost.

The bias is concluding it isn't. The evidence that balance makes war dominant is overwhelming.

You have however, committed a logical fallacy by assuming that means war is the central gameplay of Civ 6.

I'm not sure which fallacy you believe I've committed since you didn't state one. However, not only can war win the game outright, none of the other victory conditions are remotely viable against opposition that is trying to achieve a victory condition unless the winning nation can defeat them in war. This is a matter of fact. No cities = none of the present victory conditions are possible.

You have no evidence to back up your claims that all other gaming conditions are secondary to war

I provided it already. You did not address it.

War can block every VC in Civ 1-6, and it can ensure victory even with domination/conquest turned off in Civ 1-6. When one plays against opponents that try, any time a player threatens to win he/she must defend, quite likely against multiple opponents. If the player still wins in this scenario, they can win domination and the pseudo victories are there to save time if the losers don't want to concede. If not, whatever pseudo victory condition pursued in its stead isn't happening; losing this dogpile war is game over.

Literally the only setting that changes this equation is "always peace", to force-remove the need to build units or defend yourself in any capacity. When this option is selected, the game is shallow indeed as players who get RNG'd into bad land have no recourse. You would also need doctored/mirrored maps just to get a decent non-war shake.

In other words, you have drastically alter the game rules and play under strict conditions just to make anything other than war the dominant consideration in this game, and when you do so a large portion of the game's technologies and civics become irrelevant, something that just doesn't happen to nearly the same degree if you were to disable religion or space.

Civilization is a game about Civilization, all it was, is and is to come.

What the game's own evidence supports is that Civilization is a 4x with a historical theme. Speaking of fallacies, I said that "the game's balance is centered around war", not that "civ 6 is a war game", so the comment about what war games allow doesn't do a lot for this discussion. You also didn't address the 8 vs 15 cities issue, or why the game needs an implementation of "your rules are not our rules" BS in a strategy title just to help the AI game throw.

Yes, peace is "an option" in civ. When someone else is threatening to win the game outright, it is also objectively a false choice, one a competent player would only make when the pre-game settings enforce it. Not attempting to intercept another nation who will win is throwing, and failing to defend yourself is a loss in a way that failing to spread your faith is not.

 

[Archon_Wing]

. If the player still wins in this scenario, they can win domination and the pseudo victories are there to save time if the losers don't want to concede

Well that may not be entirely true. Being able to defend yourself doesn't necessarily means you can take everyone out. These peaceful options do have a use-- breaking stalemates. In a free for all scenario it is about doing good but not enough to stand out and try to sneak by before it is too late.

But true that winning domination implies all other victories and whoever wins whatever is generally superior militarily

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well that may not be entirely true. Being able to defend yourself doesn't necessarily means you can take everyone out. These peaceful options do have a use-- breaking stalemates. In a free for all scenario it is about doing good but not enough to stand out and try to sneak by before it is too late.

But true that winning domination implies all other victories and whoever wins whatever is generally superior militarily

The problem with using these VCs to break stalemates is that when playing with people who are playing the same game, the incentive becomes to dogpile the winner.

There's one other problem with the "breaking stalemate" line of reasoning for the VCs...and that is attack vs defense balance. In every civ I can remember, the game has mechanics that significantly favor the defender over the attacker in war for most of the game. In every game from Civ 2 until now, this equation flips late-game. There are actually multiple things that contribute to this, but the largest one by far is nukes.

Once you get to late game tech, you are at a disadvantage as a defender...and that can even be true with a tech lead. If you're far enough ahead to win space while avoiding the threat of nukes and other late game units/spies interfering, you were also far enough ahead to press that military advantage to win militarily.

Civ doesn't HAVE to be that way. If you change the numbers, remove nukes/tiles pillaged by bombers/naval forks (in civ 4) and so forth it's possible to make the balance not centered on warfare. However, Firaxis has never actually done this in civ, not even in the anti-expansion civ 5. Even there, nuking someone into oblivion or separating them from their tile improvements + taking/burning their cities was quite effective in ensuring that civ isn't winning.

Put another way: if the game wasn't balanced around war first, you would see other victory conditions and methods dominate in PvP. Yet what happens in PvP, in any civ game over the last 20 years?

 

[Archon_Wing]

The problem with using these VCs to break stalemates is that when playing with people who are playing the same game, the incentive becomes to dogpile the winner.

It will (and probably should) happen anyways. It's what separates say a 1v1 game from an FFA.

There's one other problem with the "breaking stalemate" line of reasoning for the VCs...and that is attack vs defense balance. In every civ I can remember, the game has mechanics that significantly favor the defender over the attacker in war for most of the game. In every game from Civ 2 until now, this equation flips late-game. There are actually multiple things that contribute to this, but the largest one by far is nukes.

That may not be too bad Early game, it gives people a chance to build and less be "cheesed" or deal with a bad position. Late game though, I see the problem but there does need to be a way for people to win if others just insist on turtling and refuse to take initiative.

Incidentally I like to compare this to the Wonder Victory in Age of Empires 2 where you will win if you build a very expensive structure that takes a long time to build and must be defended but in the grand majority of cases this never comes into play because between equally skilled players, the deficit in resources becomes too great and will result in a loss (and of course not viable in an FFA). But they can be too much on certain maps where it is very hard to break through cost effectively. It's sort of a psuedo victory condition that often gets turned off, but the idea is the same as here-- it just costs too much compared to cracking enemy heads but the concept itself is still legitimate.

Once you get to late game tech, you are at a disadvantage as a defender...and that can even be true with a tech lead. If you're far enough ahead to win space while avoiding the threat of nukes and other late game units/spies interfering, you were also far enough ahead to press that military advantage to win militarily.

Civ doesn't HAVE to be that way. If you change the numbers, remove nukes/tiles pillaged by bombers/naval forks (in civ 4) and so forth it's possible to make the balance not centered on warfare. However, Firaxis has never actually done this in civ, not even in the anti-expansion civ 5. Even there, nuking someone into oblivion or separating them from their tile improvements + taking/burning their cities was quite effective in ensuring that civ isn't winning.

Nukes being weaker would definitely improve balance but I suppose some would argue that it'd be disappointing to have "weak nukes" although that never stopped Starcraft from making them cool.

I definitely think nukes need way more counterplay though. Right now, the options (anti-air 1 tile radius) is pathetic given the long range where it can go. Civ IV allowed you to build SDI but that was hardly foolproof either, plus tactical nukes ignored most of it.

Planes are also overpowered. They pretty much cost the same as other units while being able to tear down cities even at tech pairity; you can cripple them with several planes and a few tanks.

That being said, we can also see what happens when the balance gets skewed towards the attacker, which Civ 6 IMO does. First off, joint wars and no "join war" means it's more effective to get you and someone to joint war another premptively before they do it to you first and that is horrifically unintuitive. because not even allies auto-follow you into a war. Defensive pacts are useless because it requires both civs to reach a late game civic, compared to Civ 4 which only required one player to reach a mid-game tech.

No early defenses such as early city bombards means barbarians and rushes have undue prominence (arguably artificial difficulty when horse ones are involved) and pillaging is way more damaging that it was (districts can take forever to repair). And this isn't even counting stuff like battering rams and ridiclous civs like Sumeria/Scythia/Macedon/Persia, of which the former 2 have no counterplay whatsoever and starting next to an actually competent opponent would mean instant death. So meanwhile you can only pursue the psuedo victory conditions out of boredom to save yourself an hour of staring at "please wait" because the AI is too stupid to play its own game.

P.S. And yes war is the primary point of design. Most design decisions are of military balance, and of course 90% of what you build, is in fact, military. And heck, even the 1 UPT system that is much talked about in 5 and 6 is of a military nature....

 

[Karpius]

It should be no surprise that warfare is a central and even dominant theme of the game "Civilization". This is simply an accurate representation of the entire scope of human history. Throughout history, warfare has been the final arbiter of every victory or defeat of every civilization known. Even if the act of war was absent, the threat of war was always present and influenced the flow of commerce, the spread of religion and the growth of culture. Or eradicated such things as well.

It seems rather natural to me that warfare should have the same final effects in the game of Civilization as well. It is the ultimate arm of diplomacy. Even to this day it remains the last resort to achieve dominance or ensure survival. It is quite the same in the game. I have played many 'peaceful' games and achieved science, religious and culture victories with nary a shot fired. However, I always strived to make sure my civilization was capable of fending off as best as possible any attacker. Sometimes, I was unsuccessful and one or another opponent would finally go to war because it was their only recourse to upset my agenda. Other times, if my military disposition was powerful enough, they chose not to attack. In my mind, based on human history, this all stands to reason.

 

[Forster]

You are correct that war has been with humanity as long as we have records. The concept for warmongering is just wrong. As pointed out above, the Brits burned the US capitol in 1812. I suspect that as soon as the treaty was signed, both nations were trading with each other. A little over 100 years later, they were friendly and allies. Thirty years after that they became allies and have been since. Nation have always moved back and forth as enemies and friends. The hate doesn't last centuries, especially in the modern era.