Warmongering calculation in BNW?

Good, thinking this way, civilizations that tolerate and no tolerate warmongers equals. It's true?

In BNW, you can be a warmonger (will show up in the tooltip) but it may say (they don't care about it) which I assume means there's minimal if any impact to how they view you.

about half the Civs give me the *dont care* tooltip when I do conquer another civ (wipe out entirely, capital captured etc.) So i'm unclear as to why it's such a huge issue.

I assume people are running into problems when they go overboard, but that's to be expected. Or just don't want to see the penalty show up at all, which to me is ridiculous as I prefer to see it, with a caveat that they dont care instead of not see it and wonder why on turn 300 the AI flipped out on me because the modifier was hidden until then.

People are so weird.
 
As it stands now the winning the game via Domination is much harder. It very quickly becomes you Vs. the world. For fun I decided I would play the Zulu's and open with Honor. I am down to 3 civs left but I have been embargoed almost the whole game and my trade routes are all within my borders most of the game.

*On a side note the strategy did not work out near as well as going a 3-4 city start with Liberty and then starting to conquer. I also rushed Writing into GL getting it about turn 50 to take Civil Service. I was very strong early but the other players had so few cities that were under developed that it took a long time to conquer due to the gaps in the map and the cities were poor for a long time because of the stupid puppet AI. Not ideal way to win a domination.
 
I also disagree that Civ is merely a war game ...
I never said that Civ is merely a war game. I said that Civ is also a war game. It is certainly much more than that, and among those things, it's also some sort of representation of the history of civilization. Apart for the unhealthy consequence it has on gameplay, for me, it also breaks immersion to have Warmonger hate last for not only centuries, but millenia. War has been part of world history, but the concept of Warmonger hate we see now is a much more recent invention. Instead of giving me Warmonger hate for conquering city, they can give me a diplo hit for expanding too fast. I would also think it made more sense if they gave me a diplo hit for declaring war on someone they like, just like they give me a hit for denouncing someone they like - or like me for having a common friend - and if these penalties and bonuses even had comparable magnitudes so you don't become world pariah for conquering a couple of cities once, it would make much more sense in terms of how game plays out.
 
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.

Well, Liberating gives you a reverse warmonger bonus, which takes what would normally be a warmonger penalty and instead subtracts it from whatever warmonger points you currently have. In that respect, the AI is not broken. What is broken is when the AI has done absolutely everything to deserve being warred with, with the exception of actual war -- they steal land from you with GGs constantly, send missionaries and prophets to your holy cities even when you ask them to stop, spy on you and steal all your technologies, but you still get a large warmonger penalty for declaring war and taking their cities, which you have reserved as a last resort, but they just won't stop.

Funnily enough, you can largely avoid the penalty by killing all their units and getting them to give you cities in peace deals, even if you end up burning down those cities, so extortion is A-OK, and genocide is just fine as long as they agree to it beforehand, but you march your troops into one city? You're Hitler for the rest of the game.

There needs to be at least some kind of "Political Capital" that you gain when you denounce someone who has committed transgressions, giving more weight to your denunciations and acting as a buffer against warmonger hate, or at the very least, warmonger hate needs to decay much faster than it currently does, because as others have stated, conquering one city can label you as a warmonger for the entire rest of the game. That's broken.
 
In BNW, you can be a warmonger (will show up in the tooltip) but it may say (they don't care about it) which I assume means there's minimal if any impact to how they view you.

about half the Civs give me the *dont care* tooltip when I do conquer another civ (wipe out entirely, capital captured etc.) So i'm unclear as to why it's such a huge issue.

I assume people are running into problems when they go overboard, but that's to be expected. Or just don't want to see the penalty show up at all, which to me is ridiculous as I prefer to see it, with a caveat that they dont care instead of not see it and wonder why on turn 300 the AI flipped out on me because the modifier was hidden until then.

People are so weird.

Here's the thing... Yes, in the ancient era, I conquered two of Washington's cities. Alexander was the one who wiped him out before turning his attention to me. I fought back his invasion force and took one city before he sued for peace, giving me two other cities of his in the deal. From then on, he kept stealing my techs, denouncing me, taunting me, stealing land with Generals, and generally being a nuisance, so I denounced him, and suddenly two of the AIs are mad at me because they think Alexander is such a great guy. Keep in mind, he has killed more cities than me by this point and always declares war. He declares war again and I took his capital. Now I'm facing chain denunciations even from my own friends.

This guy wiped out America and has initiated all the wars we've ever fought, the wars we fought were in the Medieval era, and it is now the Information era. Why am I still considered a warmonger by every AI in the game? It's so bad that even liberating Mongolia didn't help me. My trade partners are constantly declaring war, my "friends" are constantly backstabbing me, and even though I never take any of their cities, they just can't get over that one time I took Greece's capital.
 
Here's the thing... Yes, in the ancient era, I conquered two of Washington's cities. Alexander was the one who wiped him out before turning his attention to me. ..so I denounced him, and suddenly two of the AIs are mad at me because they think Alexander is such a great guy. Keep in mind, he has killed more cities than me by this point and always declares war. He declares war again and I took his capital. Now I'm facing chain denunciations even from my own friends.

..My trade partners are constantly declaring war, my "friends" are constantly backstabbing me, and even though I never take any of their cities, they just can't get over that one time I took Greece's capital.

I've been backstabbed before, but not in such a case where I'm suffering from chain denunciations, unless of course I've done something to earn it.

I bolded the part that I think is most relevant as I do not think you're being denounced for taking on Alexander, but rather, you managed the diplomacy in the inter-war period poorly.

If you denounced/Dow an AI who has DoF with other AI, it's seen as a major weight to your relations for those AI who have a DoF with them.

Worse, if you denounced Alex while you have a DoF with him (unlikely but AI is sometimes known to offer fake DoF ) it's a huge black mark against you. you're marked as A backstabber.

Doing those things will send you into the diplomatic doghouse.

Denouncing is a great thing if you have a clear alignment of interest with your friends and the Civ you're denouncing, and it can be used as a signal to your intentions if you're about to attack someone you don't particularly like and don't want to look manic about it. You might even earn brownie points from other Civs who don't like the Civ you just denounced.

Denouncing a well-liked Civ is just not a good idea. You can still take cities, go to war with them but NOT denounce them and it actually moderates their friends attitudes towards you quite a bit.

Denouncements should be treated as a signal, not as a bait for an already aggressive AI pushing your buttons (stealing land, Dowing you etc.) to Dow you some more so you can take more of their land. And you cannot ignore DoFs of the Civ you are denouncing.

On the same token DoF is important. It's not a 'we sort of like this guy' announcement, in civ5 it's a very clear statement of friendship. FYI, I use it all the time to get an aggressor off by back. Get enough DoF with your neighbors and they will think twice about attacking you or denouncing you.

In summary, the warmonger penalty isn't the cause. Because I've singlehandedly wiped out civs before, where they even are friends with my neighbour, and have no problem rehabilitating my image. I ended up having game-long DoF with their former friends.

Diplo tooltip still says I dow their friend, but its far far outweighed by everything else we have in common and all the common struggles we've embarked on.

Finally here's my story:
Here's a typical scenario.
Shoshone has DoF with Zulu ; Zulu is close to my difficult to reach city state allies and I don't want to send forces to defend them. Assyria is my neighbour and former BFF but they also denounced me (a backstab) as the world descends into an ideological schism.

My Friends who are all Order Ideology denounces Shoshone, Zulu and Assyria.

I denounce Shoshone, the Civ furthest away from me, but hold back on Zulus and Assyria. I earn brownie points for aligned interest and I openly use my host position on the World Congress to propose things against their interests ban luxuries both the shoshone and zulues share or are likely trading. I get my votes. Assyria hesitates to DoW as I direct more and more trade routes their way, and I finally attack the Zulus on my own terms in defense of the Danes we were about to be wiped out. We're not friends, but my denouncement of their friend soured our relations and I refuse his open borders, shift my trade routes away, but I didn't denounce them either.
 
I've been backstabbed before, but not in such a case where I'm suffering from chain denunciations, unless of course I've done something to earn it.

I bolded the part that I think is most relevant as I do not think you're being denounced for taking on Alexander, but rather, you managed the diplomacy in the interregnum period poorly.

If you denounced an AI who has DoF with other AI, it's seen as a major weight to your relations

Worse, if you denounced Alex while you have a DoF with him (unlikely but AI is known to offer fake DoF sometimes) it's a huge black mark against you. you're marked as A backstabber.

Doing those things will send you into the diplomatic doghouse.

Denouncing is a great thing if you have a clear alignment of interest with your friends and the Civ you're denouncing, and it signals your intentions if you're about to attack someone you don't particularly like.

But denouncing a well-liked Civ is just not a good idea. You can still take cities, go to war with them but NOT denounce them and it actually moderates their friends attitudes towards you quite a bit.

Denouncements should be treated as a signal, not as a bait for an already aggressive AI pushing your buttons (stealing land, Dowing you etc.) to Dow you some more so you can take more of their land. And you cannot ignore DoFs of the Civ you are denouncing.

On the same token DoF is important. It's not a 'we sort of like this guy' announcement, in civ5 it's a very clear statement of friendship. FYI, I use it all the time to get an aggressor off by back. Get enough DoF with your neighbors and they will think twice about attacking you or denouncing you.

In summary, the warmonger penalty isn't the cause. Because I've singlehandedly wiped out civs before, where they even are friends with my neighbour, and have no problem rehabilitating my image. I ended up having game-long DoF with their former friends.

Diplo tooltip still says I dow their friend, but its far far outweighed by everything else we have in common and all the common struggles we've embarked on.

I actually think my mistake wasn't just conquering Greece, because that didn't seem to upset Poland and Portugal right away. My big mistake was... denouncing Austria for WIPING OUT MONGOLIA? Seriously!? Mongolia was my friend, and Maria Theresa was declaring war on everyone! She was so hated by the international community that she had an Embargo passed on her the instant the WC was founded, and everyone voted in favor of it. But now you're telling me that Poland and Portugal had a change of heart and a DoF with her, and they thought I was a jerk for calling her out?

Oh, and to make matters more hilarious, she ended up backstabbing both of them after that anyway. Declared war and started conquering everyone again just like she always had. I think the problem here wasn't the warmonger hate, it was that my denunciation ended up being totally valid, and I wasn't vindicated for it. The warmonger hate was just the straw the broke the camel's back.
 
Whatever your mistake was, and I'm 90% sure it was denouncing off the cuff and not checking all the interconnected friendships, it's not the warmonger penalty.

Denouncements is not the be-all-end all of antagonism on the global arena. There can be periods of cold dislike, and non-engagement. That actually is the norm for antagonistic relations with the AI.

Denouncements are exceptions, and more about leveraging diplomatic alignments than anything.
 
Dexters, I have a question for you: To what extend have you looked into the game code to see how big modifiers you get for the different diplomatic interactions - denouncing someone, denouncing their friend, denouncing your own friend, forming a DoF, having a shared friend, etc?
 
Does the warmongering factor come into account if nobody sees you?

If, for example, I'm on an island with other civs and destroy all civs before anyone has made contact with the island, will there still be a warmongering adjustment?

It's the BNW equivalent of a tree falling in the wood.

Thanks for your help.
 
The main issue I have with the warmonger thing is that the AI forgets this is just a game someone is trying to win through domination. If you're half way there, you're hated by absolutely everyone and can expect a massive increase in difficulty once WC/UN resolutions hit you.

They're actively trying to prevent you from killing everyone who is left.

on the other hand, if you try to win in any other way, they'll let you do that. 90% culture influence on someone and they offer you open borders. Space ship almost complete but no military? Must maintain peace.
3 City states allied with you that guarantee you will win the next World Leader? Nah, can't attack city states.
 
Why would Freedom ideology give a larger warmongering penalty than others? I have no idea how all of these mess with balance of the game but I'd prefer a system where a civ who shares ideology with you would give you lesser warmongering penalty and a civ who doesn't share ideology with you would give you a larger penalty. That'd be a bit more in line with the concept of the war of ideologies as well.

Yes, that is very strange since USA in our real world has to be one of the most warmongering civs and is the biggest advocate for freedom.
 
If you want to bring politics into this, I don't think any nation right now is an advocate for freedom anymore at this point.
 
Please, don't let this happen! Until now, this was such an interesting and useful thread about game mechanics. And game mechanics only! Don't derail it with politics and other "reals world issues"!
 
André Alfenaar;12658608 said:
Do cities that are offered in a peace offering also count as conquered cities?
No, at least that's what I've heard other people report.
 
The more I've been playing with it the more I'm starting to like the new new warmongering mechanics. It actually means minor squables have a greatly reduced impact, if there is an overly aggressive civ' nearby I can declare war, destroy his armies and then gain a city (with full infrastructure and population) from the peace deal. It really does make sense to do things that way, if you take a city by force you're slaughtering half the population to enforce martial law, it's no wonder people get pissed at you and saying "well he started it" doesn't really cut it. Getting cities in a peace deal does a better job of showing that the city has surrendered to you, and that the borders have been redrawn after war.

I do have a question though at what rate does the warmonger debuff decay? It's said earlier in the thread that the debuff for declaring war is 2.5 +/- 50% for a civs warmonger hate. If it really does decay 1 point every 5 turns that's only ~20 turns for an anti-warmongerer. That doesn't seem to bad if you're the aggressor and get a free city out of it.
 
Dexters, I have a question for you: To what extend have you looked into the game code to see how big modifiers you get for the different diplomatic interactions - denouncing someone, denouncing their friend, denouncing your own friend, forming a DoF, having a shared friend, etc?

I haven't done for for BNW, but it's all in an XML file under AI diplo defines (IIRC)

But for vanilla and GnK, denouncements, DoF and backstabbing all have huge weights attached to them.

I'm not 100% certian but warmonger penalty may have a decay factor applied. But don't quote me on that.
 
I do have a question though at what rate does the warmonger debuff decay? It's said earlier in the thread that the debuff for declaring war is 2.5 +/- 50% for a civs warmonger hate. If it really does decay 1 point every 5 turns that's only ~20 turns for an anti-warmongerer. That doesn't seem to bad if you're the aggressor and get a free city out of it.
No, the numbers don't work like that. The Warmonger rating decays with 5 points each turn. The 2.5 reported in this thread is actually 250 points, so the penalty you get just from doing the DoW will be completely gone in 50 turns. Basically, multiply the numbers reported in beginning of this thread by 100 to have a number that can be compared with the 5 per turn decay. For instance, when adwcta reports on first post of this thread report a value of 21 for taking out a 1-city civ on standard map (8 civs + 16 cs), this would actually be 2100 points.

However, I'm not sure which factors modify this number after the basic calculation - I know that it can range +/-50 % from this value based on AI personality (whether they tolerate or hate warmongers), but if there are other modifiers to it, I can't understand from the code (see here for a larger part of the code). I hope there is, because if the value of >2000 is applied without any regulation, that will mean critical warmonger hate for 400 turns!

I haven't done for for BNW, but it's all in an XML file under AI diplo defines (IIRC)
Indeed, they are. Just to have some numbers to compare:

Warmonger minor (>50 warmonger score): +15 (positive numbers = bad)
Warmonger major (>100 warmonger score): +40
Warmonger severe (>150 warmonger score): +70
Warmonger critical (>200 warmonger score): +100

Shared Embassy: -1
Asked them to stop spy: +10
Asked them to stop settling: +20
Return worker: -20
Resurrected them: -200
Liberated their cities (1/2/3+ cities): -30 / -50 / -60
Stealing their land with a general: +30
Adopting their religion: -5
They adopted your religion: -3
Broke military promise: +40 (and +15 to all other civs)
Broke expansion/buy land promise: +20 (+15 if you refuse to promise not to continue)
Broke no convert promise: +8 (+4 if refuse to promise)
Broke no dig promise: +30 (+20 if refuse to promise)
Killed a CS they protected: +40
Declaration of Friendship: -35
Declaration of Friendship with one of their friends/enemies: -15 / +15 (these don't seem to stack, btw!)
They denounced me: +35
I denounced them: +35
Their friend denounced me: +20 (these stack!)
My friend denounced me: +35
I DoW'd their friend: +40
Their friend DoW'd me (I think - or my friend DoW'd me possibly): +60
Share intrigue: -10

This is not a complete list, but it's fairly representative of what sort of numbers we are talking about. What I find interesting from this (appart from the odd fact that sharing their religion apparantly caries next to no weight?) is that there are MANY major bad modifiers connected to denouncing and war that will rapidly give you an extremely bad relationship with them, whereas there are very FEW major good modifiers, apart from the rare ones where you liberate their cities and bring them back to life. What this shows is that even if you have a huge stack of positive modifiers with them, the Warmonger label alone will easily be enough to neglect all of those and bring you way down in bad relationship with them for that alone.

Is that balanced? Not in my oppinion, but then again, there are still things we don't know. The threshold for critical warmonger level (>200) is so laughable low that we MUST assume that this number does not compare directly to the values of >2000 we get just from capturing one city or city state early in the game.
 
Back
Top Bottom