1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Warmongering calculation in BNW?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Deggial, Jul 18, 2013.

  1. de_baser

    de_baser Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    103
    Another note on this problem:
    Accusations of warmongering are RIFE when playing as Venice. Appearantly, using a merchant of venice to purchase a CS equals to conquering and puppeting that CS and the penalties the above mentioned algorithm brings along with it.

    What is intended to be classic medieval-capitalist hostile takeover gaming is now warmongering. It's pretty depressing, as far as "serenity" goes.
     
  2. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    i played venice and took 2 CS
    didnt notice any change in attitude
     
  3. newarkinvaders

    newarkinvaders Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    78
    Last game I started close to the Byzantines , I was playing shosone and had upgraded a pathfinder to a cb .

    There was a juicy little spot on a river near the coast with a few luxurys and a faith wonder . I t was very close to byzantine and to me and byzantine where blocked off from expansion south and west by coast and north by my capital .
    I wanted the spot so I got my 3 military units to camp outside the east of their capital while I worked on my first settler .
    After about 10 turns there settler popped up with a warrior and sure enough started heading towards the spot . I dow'd took the warrior out stole the settler as a worker and a few turns later plonked my own settler down at the spot we had both coveted , at wish point byzantine was happy to accept a neutral peace offer ...
    Within 10 turns we where back on fairly good terms and the only negative she had was coverting my lands ....
    I was quite impressed with myself but did feel a little bit like the repurcussions where well out of wack .
     
  4. Alphons Rodulfo

    Alphons Rodulfo weakling

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2002
    Messages:
    384
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    :wow: What? There is no casus belli system? There never has been? I kind of thought there was. Why else do I have the option of declaring war after discussing a spy stealing a technology?

    If a casus belli system does not exist I wholeheartedly agree that it should be implemented as soon as possible.
     
  5. Heart Break Kid

    Heart Break Kid Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    174

    I don't think this is true. I've only had one game of Venice, but I was not called a warmonger when I took city states (actually had a very good reputation until late game when I did in fact become a warmonger).
     
  6. adwcta

    adwcta King

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    889
    Location:
    New York City, USA
    But that's exactly what I said in the first place.... =/
    Quoting myself: "While the reputation of the AI that you are taking cities from is not taken into consideration, your relationship with the AI who's doing the judging IS a modifier."
     
  7. Sheershaw

    Sheershaw Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    57
    The new warmonger penalties are stupid, because it makes every AI a humanitarian, some to a lesser degree than others. The AI shouldn't care that you took out another civilization. What the AI should care about is what you taking that civ out means for them.

    There should be three factors that determine warmonger status: threat, utility, and personality.

    Personality should be what it is already. Some civs should despise certain civs for "moral" reasons. This is there to simply diversify the leader personalities.

    Threat level would reflect how much of a threat you are to an AI after warmongering. If you simply took out some crappy civ on a different continent, your threat level to them should be negligible. If you took out their powerful next door neighbor, your threat level to them should be much higher.

    Finally, they should calculate how much utility they got from the civ you wiped out. If there were a reliable ally, big trading partner, shared religion, shared ideology, etc. and you come and take them out, the AI should be much more angry at you than normal.
     
  8. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    5,120
    So, I'm bumping this topic, because I'm trying to pull some threads together. Sadly, warmonger calculation discussion has been spread over several topics, another important one is here (post 17 is really important).

    However, I would like to ask some questions to these calculations:
    Now I want to know how these numbers relate to what's in the XML files. The XML files has a section about warmonger hate that looks like this:

    Spoiler :
    Code:
    		<!--Warmonger Threat of a Player-->
    		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_CRITICAL_THRESHOLD">
    			<Value>200</Value>
    		</Row>
    		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_SEVERE_THRESHOLD">
    			<Value>150</Value>
    		</Row>
    		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_MAJOR_THRESHOLD">
    			<Value>100</Value>
    		</Row>
    		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_MINOR_THRESHOLD">
    			<Value>50</Value>
    		</Row>
    		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_MINOR_ATTACKED_WEIGHT">
    			<Value>250</Value>
    		</Row>
    		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_MINOR_CONQUERED_WEIGHT">
    			<Value>1000</Value>
    		</Row>
    [B]		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_MAJOR_ATTACKED_WEIGHT">
    			<Value>250</Value>[/B]
    		</Row>
    [B]		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_MAJOR_CONQUERED_WEIGHT">
    			<Value>1000</Value>[/B]
    		</Row>
    [B]		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_PER_TURN_DECAY">
    			<Value>-5</Value>[/B]
    		</Row>
    		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_PERSONALITY_MOD">
    			<Value>10</Value>
    		</Row>
    		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_CRITICAL_PERCENT_THRESHOLD">
    			<Value>40</Value>
    		</Row>
    		<Row Name="WARMONGER_THREAT_SEVERE_PERCENT_THRESHOLD">
    			<Value>25</Value>
    		</Row>
    


    Now I've highlighted three values that I want to tie to the calculation examples from this thread. The post on reddit quotes a formula that looks like this:

    (10 * estimated_num_cities) / (total_num_cities * num_old_owner_cities)

    Now the number 10 in this formula must be - as far as I can see - the number 1000 listed in the XML files. I say this because the reddit post lists a penalty of 2.5 for declaring war itself, which would be the 250 in the XML file.

    Now why is this interesting? It's interesting because the XML file tells us that warmonger hate decays at a rate of 5 points each turn. So let's look at those examples calculated earlier in this thread:

    1) Take out a 1 city civ from 8 civs + 16 cs: Warmonger penalty = 2100
    This warmonger hate will decay in 420 turns!

    2) Take out a 3-city civ from 8 civs with 3 cities + 16 cs: Warmonger penalty = 2400
    This warmonger hate will decay in 480 turns!

    3) Take out a 2-city cv when Hiawatha has 40 cities: Warmonger penalty = 1300
    This warmonger hate will decay in 260 turns!

    4) Take one of Hiawatha's 40 cities: Warmonger penalty = 200
    This warmonger hate will decay in 40 turns!

    Now add on top of this what has been reported in thread 17 of the topic linked above, namely that these numbers will be modified +/- 50% depending on the third party civs hatred or tolerance towards warmongers.


    Is this actually how they made it? It means that taking out one civ with 3 cities will get you warmonger hate for 400-500 turns (and 600-700 turns with civs that hate warmongers!) - or in other words, an entire game!? Clearly, this would explain why many people complain about having Warmonger labels that "never" go away, even for what seems like fairly minor transgressions.

    I hope someone can cast further light on this so that, hopefully, we can get this to work in a meaningful way.

    I hope someone can cast further light on this subject, because wh
     
  9. Halps

    Halps Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    23
    Another thing which I believe should be taken into consideration: Who STARTED the war?
    If Monty DOW's me, and I proceed to beat his ass and take his cities, I should not be the one labelled a Warmonger....
     
  10. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    5,120
    They do take that into account. Problem is that the penalty for DoW itself is very low compared to the penalty for capturing cities - 250 for the act of DoW vs. easily 1000-2000 for capturing a couple of cities. This is imo. completely wrong and should be the other way around, you should get a minor penalty for capturing cities, but the act of declaring the war should be what gave you the major penalty.
     
  11. mikeville

    mikeville Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Kansas
    This thread has been extremely fascinating.

    My last game, I was Shoshone, started very close to Poland. They DoW'ed me early and often. Finally, on the third DoW, after I crushed their army (again, for the third time), I marched up and took one of their cities. (Razed it and built my own, since they stupidly built one tile too far away from a natural wonder.) Mind you, this is still early in the game (just after comp bows). They sued for peace and offered me another of their cities. Thank you for the puppet. Anyway...

    This, of course, didn't sit well with them, so very soon, they DoW'ed me again. This time, I went and took their capital, which pretty much eliminated them as a threat (they have one city left up in the tundra).

    Now, I'm midgame (just researched Archeology) and most Civs still consider me a Warmonger.

    Not cool.

    They DoW'ed me!!! FOUR times!!! I was just protecting myself!!! I did what I had to in order to protect the citizens of my Civ. Why should I be punished diplomatically for this?

    There's got to be a better way for the warmonger calcluation mechanic to run than this.
     
  12. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Why should Dow penalty be weighted higher than capturing cities. This is one aspect they got right as Human players had gotten quite good in civ4 at baiting the AI to Dow so they can grab land. The current system doesn't punish justified defensive wars and even gives a freebie to the AI so their rep isn't ruined from the wars they declare that resulted in nothing happening because they couldn't get enough units into play to capture a city.

    The current BNW mechanism even has a tool tip telling you if your warmongering is an issue with said leaders and I've gotten along fine diplomatically with a modest penalty from my attempts to nip a challenger on a non domination game.

    This focus on tweaking the warmonger penalty seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. If your taking a lot of cities in a non domination game and want smooth diplomacy, you're asking for the development team to dumb down the AI. Not improve it in any way.
     
  13. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    5,120
    Because the current mechanism is bad for gameplay. War is part of the game, and while I accept that conquering other civs will hold some penalties, the severity of the penalty should have an appropriate scale to the crime you did. In my opinion that's not the case now. If people will hate you more than half a game later for capturing someone who's been a continuous agressor towards you, something is wrong! And what also needs to be taken into consideration is that the negative modifiers you get from being labeled warmonger is not "just another penalty", the modifier is huge, so big that it will effectively overrule almost any amount of positive modifiers you might have garnered.

    Now I agree completely that baiting the AI into DoW'ing you can be abused. That is why we ALSO need a casus beli system, so that the penalty you get for the DoW should be modified by what actions have been done towards you, and we need a control other game features such a denouncements, so that you can't just denounce people without a reason in order to bait them into DoW'ing you, but only after specific actions.

    But those things are not part of the game now, so question is: In the current frame, which model is least destructive? I think the current system is wrong like I explained above, so I think a change like I outlined would be the lesser evil.
     
  14. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    In the current frame, without a causus belli system, the system in place eworks best.

    I also disagree that Civ is merely a war game as an argument to tone down the penalty as I've grown often enough on the backs of other Civs to know that a modest penalty coupled with civs not caring about my warmongering and other diplo bonuses is enough for a smooth diplomatic game. For it to even be a problem the conquests must be excessive and really when you hit that tipping point you shouldn't care.
     
  15. djm_jm

    djm_jm Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    Location:
    BRAZIL, Rio Grande do Sul
    In my first game, after I conquest three cities from Portugal and exterminate your civilization, the AI consider me a warmonger for three eras.
     
  16. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    They can consider you as such but it likely won't affect your diplomacy.

    If we're arguing against seeing the penalty show up at all then I'm even more opposed to tweaking it as there's no game play basis, just people preferring not to see it in the diplo tool tip, which is perfectly fine as half the time, they would consider you a warmonger and won't even care
     
  17. djm_jm

    djm_jm Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    Location:
    BRAZIL, Rio Grande do Sul
    This not happen with me, when I played with Maria Tereza and I had "conquered" City-States per gold.
     
  18. djm_jm

    djm_jm Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    Location:
    BRAZIL, Rio Grande do Sul
    Good, thinking this way, civilizations that tolerate and no tolerate warmongers equals. It's true?
     
  19. HerrDoktor

    HerrDoktor Mad Scientist

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    333
    Actually, after playing a few more games, I'm unsure if this formula is enough to explain the warmongering penalty mechanism. In one game, I wiped Gengis Khan out of the game completely, but liberated some cities - nobody thought I was a warmonger. Other game, I took two cities from Byzantium, who was completely innocent, never having waged war against anybody. Everybody hated me, including Indonesia, who was with me in that war against Byzantium. The only exception was Polynesia, for which there wasn't any warmonger modifier.

    In both cases, the warmongering penalty seemed to be pretty reasonable. Gengis Khan was the monster, I was the liberator. Byzantium was innocent, I was the monster.
     
  20. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rural Vermont
    The whole discussion of casus belli and warmongering penalties for conquering one or more cities raises a question inspired by analogy to EU (which has a pretty robust CB system). In EU, having a CB doesn't allow you to go on a limitless conquering spree -- the CB sets forth well defined war aims that can be accomplished at explicit cost to stability, prestige and infamy (the EU equivalent, I guess, to warmonger hate). It is pretty common that to win a war you have to conquer and occupy multiple provinces, but when you make peace you will usually return provinces that were not covered by the CB (or not covered at acceptable cost).

    In CiV terms, can anyone tell (from the xml or dll) whether returning a city or two to your defeated foe in a peace treaty will ease your warmonger hate metrics in the eyes of other civs?

    So, for example, if I'm at war with Sweden, and I've conquered Sigtuna, Helsinki and Stockholm, but he still has Birka and Uppsala, I think my peace treaty can include giving back Helsinki and Sigtuna (I've never given back a city -- ever -- so I'm guessing here).

    Since those cities will be broken (buildings destroyed, pop cut in half), they are no longer much threat, and I might see little harm in returning those cities and some benefit (offloading the unhappiness would be good), but would I get any Warmonger goodie points (or at least fewer demerits) by returning those cities?
     

Share This Page