Why am I the warmonger?

[Rambo919]

There are also misguided notions that being the defender in a war should allow one to completely bypass warmonger penalties

Not true, there is a difference between allowable reaction and being an actual warmonger. Normal spoils of war (capturing territory and/or cities) being "warmongering" is a very modern way of thinking that poisons the games' logic, it's a kind of thinking thats only about 100 years old and this is a game that spans mellenia. Warmongering should be for agresssive action not reaction.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Basically V vanilla, and VI vanilla six years later, put you in the village and bring the dragon up all attacking and smoshing buildings, and then has all the villagers yell and throw stones at you when you knock the dragon on its bum. Then someone swoops into the forum and says, "it would be too easy to just let you defeat the dragon and be friends with the villagers after, plus a few cities." Same totally infuriating design six years apart in time.

 

[bladex]

LOL WAT

 

[Yamato2017]

It's hard not to anthropomorphize the AI, sometimes.
It would be cool to have a real learning system and train the AI. All the games everyone in the world has played would be more training. The more we play, the better the AI gets. One can dream.

Is it the reveries that you are talking about? There exist such algorithm. It's maybe too complicated regarding the recent computer capacity. It may take a while for our terminal to execute the evolution function.

 

[steveg700]

Not true, there is a difference between allowable reaction and being an actual warmonger. Normal spoils of war (capturing territory and/or cities) being "warmongering" is a very modern way of thinking that poisons the games' logic, it's a kind of thinking thats only about 100 years old and this is a game that spans mellenia. Warmongering should be for agresssive action not reaction.

Well, yes, imperialism was an accepted way of life in much of human history, war being an extension of politics by other means....That whole chestnut. Then again, nations probably didn't care to see other nations on a tear of conquest, at least not if the latter are nearby. It's not in their interest to see any of their rivals gaining too much ground, or getting too much of a taste for conquest..

However, designing a game with gameplay priorities in mind is not poisonous. Gameplay first, then historical verisimilitude.

Having said that, like I said earlier, I agree with the notion that subtracting cities from a warmonger should be agreeable to most civ's, at least if that warmonger has actually expanded its empire. First and foremost, civ's should be played against each other.

Basically V vanilla, and VI vanilla six years later, put you in the village and bring the dragon up all attacking and smoshing buildings, and then has all the villagers yell and throw stones at you when you knock the dragon on its bum. Then someone swoops into the forum and says, "it would be too easy to just let you defeat the dragon and be friends with the villagers after, plus a few cities." Same totally infuriating design six years apart in time.

Other civ's aren't villagers. They're really not your friends either, even under the best of terms. At best, they're dragons that haven't mustered the nerve to spread their wings or bear their teeth yet.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Oof, I was on some Jimmy B oops

Video games with conflict and analogies to destruction create a moral universe. It's here that the gameplay vs realism debate should take a backseat. When I was a new player my strongest negative impression of Civ was made by warmonger hate applied to me when I was never initiating conflict.

The moral universe created by letting players invest in peaceful relationships and maintain them is: wow, me and my friends are Good and this is really cool. The moral universe created by letting the player invest in peace and be attacked by a back-stabber or outright conquerer is: wow, this chico/chica is Bad! Haha I have to defeat them now, this is cool. The moral universe created by being backstabbed by all your friends, and having them act evil and not self-righteous when they do is: woah, I was the only good one! All along! This is cool. The moral universe created by being the back-stabber and hated by everyone is: Haha! You bros were fools to trust me, I'm Bad! And this is cool.

The moral universe created by pursuing peace with allies, being back-stabbed, purging the land of the back-stabber, then denounced by your allies, is: what the hell?

This has nothing to do with game balance or history, it is a consequence of allowing players to choose peace in the first place. That creates story-telling environment and huge expectations of follow-through. It's the game'a job to make that work, not let the player do things and then break the diplomacy analogy that literally motivated their actions, as punishment.

Many pop in these threads saying, "You lot just want to whine instead of engaging in diplo." No, role-players want to engage in the diplo system and it is the system that is failing them, because it breaks when you buy into its own moral logic.

Civ should either accommodate these player choices or not allow them. I mean there's a hundred easy solutions to try. Like when you destroy an invading army (when VI gives us a real AI threat again) the AI player literally shows on screen bruised and crying, gives you a city and never invades you again. It's cheesy but it resolves the invasion story-line, and nothing is more frustrating than an unresolved story-line.

But diplo just falling apart when the player takes three cities is like the game throwing up it's own board at you.

 

[Rambo919]

But diplo just falling apart when the player takes three cities is like the game throwing up it's own board at you.

Exactly, the AI ends up giving the impression of mutually trying to bully you for kicks, as if they are in a condecending clicke and you are the odd kid out. Some act nice but end up being passive agressive and taunting you into conflict and as soon as you dare to stand up for yourself everybody gets outraged even if you did not start the fight. Diplomacy is not engaging in schoolyard nonsense and intentionally trying to aggrevate someone else just because you can.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, yes, imperialism was an accepted way of life in much of human history, war being an extension of politics by other means, yadda yadda. Then again, nations probably didn't care to see other nations on a tear of conquest, at least not if the latter are nearby. It's in their interest to see any of their rivals gaining too much ground, or getting too much of a taste for conquest..

However, designing a game with gameplay priorities in mind is not poisonous. Gameplay first, then historical verisimilitude.

Having said that, like I said earlier, I agree with the notion that subtracting cities from a warmonger should be agreeable to most civ's, at least if that warmonger has actually expanded its empire. First and foremost, civ's should be played against each other.


Other civ's aren't villagers. They're really not your friends either, even under the best of terms. At best, they're dragons that haven't mustered the nerve to spread their wings yet.

Civs should care more about relative position in the game than "warmongering". Warmonger penalty is contrived and is often abrasive with the game's presentation of its own rules.

It's also broken (and extremely difficult to argue otherwise) until taking 2-4 cities does not have near-identical diplomatic consequences to taking 50.

 

[vmxa]

No matter what the mechanics of the game are, there should not be denouncements as a War Monger, if you do not declare a single war. What is the value of it, just to irritate the player? I do not care, if you raze or kept, you are justified. Early game and England has one town and DoW. I take the town, I get the denouncement from all known civs, crazy. Please a little sanity would be nice.

 

[vmxa]

I should have added to my mini rant that I am hating all the msgs for sending someone to my land and to make crazy trades. Could we just set a longer interval for that stuff? I know it is too much to ask that the trade request be mildly reasonable, so just reduce frequency.

 

[steveg700]

No matter what the mechanics of the game are, there should not be denouncements as a War Monger, if you do not declare a single war. What is the value of it, just to irritate the player? I do not care, if you raze or kept, you are justified.

To your mind, not that of the other civ's. The value of it has been explained and reiterated, so no need to do so again.

Early game and England has one town and DoW. I take the town, I get the denouncement from all known civs, crazy. Please a little sanity would be nice.

You wiped another player out. Seems like the sort of thing the AI should take note of. I would. Having said that, if it was in the ancient era, there would be no warmonger penalty (that's when the herd is supposed to get thinned), so it's peculiar to get denounced at that point.

I should have added to my mini rant that I am hating all the msgs for sending someone to my land and to make crazy trades. Could we just set a longer interval for that stuff? I know it is too much to ask that the trade request be mildly reasonable, so just reduce frequency.

Yeah, everybody hates that.

 

[vmxa]

Take note of, what. Are civs suppose to allow others to declare war and not fight back? Explained, not likely. So are others civs think that they would not do anything, if someone declares war on them? I see that they can DoW many times, no issues. I have played an entire game and did not DoW, but got many denouncements. Is that suppose to be enjoyable? It would make more sense for them to denounce the one that started the war, not the one that finished it in self defense.

In any event, endless denouncements are very annoying, yeah to my mind.

 

[steveg700]

Take note of, what. Are civs suppose to allow others to declare war and not fight back? Explained, not likely. So are others civs think that they would not do anything, if someone declares war on them?

Far as I know you're free to fight back without earning any warmonger penalties. You can wipe out the opposing army in its entirety and no one will raise a peep. However, as others have previously done, you are subsuming the capturing of cities and even the erasure of other civilizations under the notion of "self-defense".

Honestly, are you really defending yourself out of some desperate need to preserve your empire, or just using "hey, I didn't start it" as a pretext for helping yourself to another civ's choicest cities? That rationale would be a transparent ploy with real players (or real nations, for that matter).

 

[menendark2]

I got so annoyed with CIv6 diplomacy that i wanted to recover my forgotten civfanatics password and make a topic myself on it. But turns out there is another topic.

I like role-playing in 4x games. Whether I am playing as a peaceful or warmongering civ, diplomacy is always a very important aspect to the game. I have spent most of my time in CIV playing CIv4 BTS (with RoM mod) and never seen that much problem with diplomacy. I was very positively surprised when i saw how many new elements and additions Civ6 adds to diplomacy (I've never played Civ5).

However, DIPLOMACY IN CIV6 DOES NOT WORK!!!!!!!!!!!

In my first game, I was playing Roman empire and thought to go for a domination victory. Im somewhere in mid-game really annoyed and thinking about returning to Civ4, because I havent declared any wars, BUT APPARENTLY I AM A WARMONGER THAT EVERYONE DENOUNCES in MEDIEVAL AGE. All that i have done is keep some cities from civs that have declared a war on me and actually finished off a warmonger CIV (Sparta), which declared war on me. I mean seriously? In Medieval ages it was common sense that you have the right to defend yourself, if you are attacked. Even under International Public law every state has the right to self defence. If the aggressor is not willing to offer their surrender, what other choice you have than to capture them? I understand that in modern age most likely any modern state, which won a defensive war, would be pressured by the international community to simply install a new government in the aggressor, demand damages, buth restrain from keeping captured territories.
But, this is not certainly the case in a videogame or in Medieval age


Is there a mod, which fixes this to certain extent?

 

[madeirabhoy]

so glad i read this thread, as i though it was just me. never declared war on anyone, just fought off attacks, and in one case i did react to suméria and china DoWing me by almost wiping out suméria. apart from being fair enough, its the nature of the game to want to win it.

what really annoyed me was that suméria kept asking for peace, and getting pissed off when i said no, but what they kept suggesting was stupid. if ive got 5 of their cities, why would i give them back 2 and a pile of money for peace? but by saying no, every country hated me and so did my own people and all of a sudden id so many barbarians it was like playing asteroids.

 

[RoFortaleza]

Funny topic.

"I only razed few cities raping their women and killing their babies, but why I'm the warmonger!"

We need mods and hopefully some expansions and DLC's. We need the world congress, that is so much fun. I still haven't been able to form 1 Alliance at all and ALWAYS everybody hates me for some reason. One time I got a green face and I have no idea why.

 

[steveg700]

so glad i read this thread, as i though it was just me. never declared war on anyone, just fought off attacks, and in one case i did react to suméria and china DoWing me by almost wiping out suméria. apart from being fair enough, its the nature of the game to want to win it.

what really annoyed me was that suméria kept asking for peace, and getting pissed off when i said no, but what they kept suggesting was stupid. if ive got 5 of their cities, why would i give them back 2 and a pile of money for peace? but by saying no, every country hated me and so did my own people and all of a sudden id so many barbarians it was like playing asteroids.

Your people are not upset because of warmonger penalties. They are upset from negative amenities, most likely due to war weariness. Also, be mindful that you may be misinterpreting his peace offer. Unless a civ concedes a city over to you, it remains occupied and will not grow. So, if you see them offering cities on their side that you already have, that means they are conceding them to you.

If the aggressor is not willing to offer their surrender, what other choice you have than to capture them?

Not capture them.

Sorry to excise the pseudo-historical rationalizations, but if you're successfully fighting a defensive war and crushing all invaders as you should be in the game's current state) why do you need to capture their cities? You don't really, right? You did it because once the invader's army was wiped out, those cities looked ripe for the taking.

I think GhostSaka and TheMeInTeam both articulated some good points about the shortcomings in how the game handles warmongering, but to my mind those points are done no service by attempts to cotend the capturing of cities as being driven by the forced hand of survival rather than opportunism. Too coy by half.

 

[Galbias]

Sorry to excise the pseudo-historical rationalizations, but if you're successfully fighting a defensive war and crushing all invaders as you should be in the game's current state) why do you need to capture their cities? You don't really, right? You did it because once the invader's army was wiped out, those cities looked ripe for the taking.

War Weariness, a mechanic that exists solely to make you want to avoid staying at war? Trade routes and tiles/districts getting pillaged? Being cut off from whatever area of the map the offender controls?

 

[steveg700]

War Weariness, a mechanic that exists solely to make you want to avoid staying at war? Trade routes and tiles/districts getting pillaged? Being cut off from whatever area of the map the offender controls?

But mostly just plucking some low-hanging fruit, eh? War weariness isn't going to go easier on a player if they go from fighting a genuinely defensive war within your own borders and start going on the offensive in enemy cities (unless, y'know, they end the war through elimination). It will get considerably more severe, in fact. In all likelihood that's why madeirabhoy had such bad war weariness that rebels started spawning. I would like to think the AI is calculating the player's lack of happiness into its peace offer, but I can't really give it anything close to that much credit.

If you're in a position to conquer cities, you're probably also in a good position to prevent pillaging. Their are certainly times when it makes good sense to conquer, but if I'm really interested in being a dove, those are going to be fairly exceptional situations.

 

[HeliosDisciple]

WHY ARE PEOPLE CALLING ME WARMONGER all i did was totally annihilate all who annoy me geez youd think that was aggressive or something im just a poor innocent victim