I have no problem with warmongering penalties when one declares war. That is warmongering. But it seems wrong to accumulate penalties when war is declared against you. In my current game I had four civs all declaring on me out of the blue at the same time, Lord knows why. Two of them were so far away they couldn't actually attack me, so I could easily hold off the other two. To bring them to the peace table I had to attack their cities. Once you capture a city, you only have two options, keep or raze, and both give you penalties. I reason it is perfectly fair to hold on to some enemy territory to punish the aggressors, but guess what - pretty soon all the civs in the game are serially denouncing me for being a warmonger. Since the penalties fade so slowly (if they do at all), once the situation reaches this state, it seems there is no further sanction. So I might as well attack all over the place, since any further penalty is meaningless. If the penalties are applied so severely, they cease to have any deterrent effect. Surely it would be better for the game if warmongering didn't saturate so easily?