Why am I the warmonger?

[spfun]

The problem with this mechanic is that you now have no alternative to punishing an AIs bizarre decision to place a city in between your own cities, to the point where it can only ever have 4 tiles! These sort of maddening decisions force your hand, you have to raze the city as keeping it means it will always be a rubbish city and that isn't fun to me. Which of course means becoming a warmonger for the rest of the game... Unless your lucky enough to get to liberate a city somewhere.

The game is so horribly unrealistic in many areas it baffles me how many people keep bringing up realism as the counter argument. Realism does not trump good gameplay.

 

[GhostSalsa]

And being invaded is not, as far as realism or gameplay goes, an annoyance, it is an existential threat

But once again the game only needs to offer more a definitive event of "defeating" the invader that does not taking all their cities, to encourage players to keep their own borders, rather than encouraging players to blow up their diplo role play unintentionally or intentionally.

 

[Rambo919]

Why defend the AI bing an ass? Makes no sense unless ur trolling. If you declare war you forfeit the right to get upset because you actually lose something more than your army, simple as that. Being a stupid AI is no defence, would the same AI that gets sore about losing a city ever give any of yours it managed to take back (assuming the AI ever gets smart enough to actually capture one in the first place)? The only argument for the current state of the game is that maybe the AI only plays at war instead of waging it in a bid to contain you, that explains how easily it declares it with little more result than raging bands of idiots destroying everything in their path. But even if this is the case then taking a enemy city, that settled right next to you even though the enemy civ is on the other side of the map, should be punishment enough and make any sensible rival stop antagonizing you instead of increasing his agressivity. I know the AI is stupid but throwing temper tantrums because you dont get your way is annoying, in fact it makes me want to destroy childish idiot simply to shut him up.... how exactly is interuppting someone you just groveled in the dirt to to get peace just to badmouth his mother a good idea anyway?

The problem here is probably really a clash between SP and MP players, for the MP players it's all about points and how to get them as fast as possible while keeping the other player's points as low as possible, for the SP players it's about actually playing a long game coherently without wanting to punch the AI in the face all the time. I was hoping for civ 6 to be to civ 5 what win7 was to vista but it seems it's more like win10 was to win7.... It's Civ 3 all over again I just know that no matter how hard I try I'm just gonna end up hating it if only because the districts make no sense either, placing a area should take one turn at most and any benifits whould be because of buildings placed in it not because of the area itself. Digression aside though the most of the complaints are probably from primarily SP players while most of the (sometimes moronic) defences are probably from primarily MP players. It was only after maybe 1900 that anyone felt any need to maintain pre-war boundries or "just go back to how things were before" in any moral sense, it makes no sense to force a historical fad unto the whole game. For most of history territory changed hands all the time with only local ethnic groups holding personal grudges.

 

[Hukuma]

I think a change that would be good would be that if war is declared on you, you can take 1 city with no penalty, and the second has a reduced penalty. After that standard penalties.
Even in modern times, if you declare war, you are going to lose some territory, and people don't think anything of it, and it would work well with gameplay, because it allows you to punish war declarations, which feels good. Having penalties after the first city reduces concerns about manipulating AI into declaring on you so you can take their cities.
Another possibility would be reduced penalties for capturing cities at 5 tiles from one of your cities, and very reduced at 4 tiles away. This would go along with the reduced penalty with the Casus Belli for them being too close to you.

 

[RoFortaleza]

Actually you can stop a Civ to place a city near you if you spot Their settler on time and discuss to not settle near.

Will hold him on line for some turns or enough for you to destroy him or place your own city.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Forward-settling is a bit of a delicate issue. It is good for the nearby AIs to create friction by "exerting their nearness." But, putting a city on the other side of you from their capital just leaves you with the very stupid, artificial-feeling decision to displace their nice little citizens from their homes or play nice now only to have an enemy super-fortress right in the middle of your homeland..

Generally AIs should just expand near their current borders and threaten you that way, so there's no ambiguity that they are after your land..

 

[NeilUK02]

I've had this as well where I was declared a warmonger early on and it stayed all the way through the game, on older versions, 4 and 5 I seem to remember that over time (if you stayed at peace) the other AI would slowly forgive and in time you could get back to being friendly. In Civ 6 I was a warmonger in year 900AD and was still a warmonger at the end of the game (I lost!) DOH!

 

[steveg700]

I think a change that would be good would be that if war is declared on you, you can take 1 city with no penalty, and the second has a reduced penalty. After that standard penalties.
Even in modern times, if you declare war, you are going to lose some territory, and people don't think anything of it, and it would work well with gameplay, because it allows you to punish war declarations, which feels good.

I'm not sure what modern examples you'd cite here. Modern military conflicts tend to be about issues other than expansion.

Personally, I'd like there to be a means to take one city without a major warmongering penalty, period. Maybe have the warmongering penalty be mitigated by the size of the city in some respect (e.g. population killed and buildings wrecked during the capture). Or even proximity to your capital. Thus, you can "annex" those little postage stamp cities that the AI might drop nearby (I don't actually experience this, just taking on faith that it happens).

Then again, I'd also prefer that cities could be flipped through non-combative means, which would make it possible for pacifistic civ's to wage purely cultural warfare.

The insistence of many in this thread is that the act of declaring war should serve as the main source of a warmongering penalty, and thus the defender winds up being in the clear for helping itself to the aggressor's cities. Seems clearly a bad way to go to my mind. Better for the designers to simply include options to provide some checkboxes to turn off warmonger penalties and war weariness for those who don't want to manage these aspects of the game. Just have to be willing to eat one's own dogfood.

 

[Rambo919]

Depends on whether you include wwii in "modern" perhaps. That was partially because of territory.

 

[Mogloth]

Personally, I'd like there to be a means to take one city without a major warmongering penalty, period. Maybe have the warmongering penalty be mitigated by the size of the city in some respect (e.g. population killed and buildings wrecked during the capture). Or even proximity to your capital. Thus, you can "annex" those little postage stamp cities that the AI might drop nearby (I don't actually experience this, just taking on faith that it happens).

Then again, I'd also prefer that cities could be flipped through non-combative means, which would make it possible for pacifistic civ's to wage purely cultural warfare.

YES!! Bring back cultural conversion of cities. This would solve my issues with the AI founding a city 4 tiles away from my capital. I could just wait to take over that city with my microwaves and television.

 

[steveg700]

Depends on whether you include wwii in "modern" perhaps. That was partially because of territory.

True, Germany wanted more farmable land, but when Germany lost the Allied nations did not add their cities to their empires.

(And some of those "empires" really could have used some more forest tiles )

 

[GhostSalsa]

those little postage stamp cities that the AI might drop nearby (I don't actually experience this, just taking on faith that it happens).

Several pics of cities on wrong side of a neighbor in the funny screenshot thread

 

[Rambo919]

True, Germany wanted more farmable land, but when Germany lost the Allied nations did not add their cities to their empires.

(And some of those "empires" really could have used some more forest tiles )

Actually germany and/or poland were kind of moved territorially after the end, chunks of land changed ownership. But that's besides the point.
The allies did not take any territory from the defeated axis only because on the one hand they did not want it and on the other they needed a strong vassal germany to use as a weapon against russia, same thing with japan. Russia on the other hand annexed eastern europe.... it's not that no cities were added to empires it's that the nature of empire changed and two new ones were formed.

 

[kaltorak]

This is working as intended. Not working as it should be intended tho.
This feature is absolutely wrong imo, and was the same in civ5.
If I want to be totally peacefull, but somebody declarse war on me, he makes me stop expanding/developing/building wonders.... OFC Ill get some cities in compensation, otherwise I wasted all that time and units for nothing. But I still played peacefully, just defended myself and got compensation for the war.

 

[diamond geezer]

The thing that exercises me is that the AI can swarm units all round me, but I can't warn them off. Which means I have to either declare war (Warmonger) or wait for them to get in the 'first punch'.

I also don't like that having an Ally seems to do nothing; nor being a Suzerain.

 

[Mogloth]

So, I've been playing a game the past few days. For full disclosure I am using some mods. I have no idea if any of these drastically alter the way the warmongering penalty works from vanilla.

8 ages of pace
8 ages of war
AI+
A mod that improves yields on water tiles

After reading this and other threads about warmongering penalties I tried a new tactic. I was Surprise Warred on about three or four times. Each time I just fought off the AI and never captured any cities. With the first 3 peace settlements I was able to negotiate a city away from the AI. And all this time I had 1 green face, a couple yellows and a couple nothings (neutral). This is happening in the 1900s.

With the last war I decided to capture a city. As soon as I captured the city *I* sued for peace. After having the war declared on *me*.

I instantly was hit with a line of red faces. The warmongering penalty was -36.

After several turns, which was spent building up the new city, I looked at why everyone was now denouncing me and had red faces. For the civ that I took the city from they were mad at warmongering and that I occupied a city of theirs. So I performed an experiment. At this point everyone was still at -36 relationship to me.

I gifted the city back to the civ. After several turns, everyone was still red face but the -36 penalty was down to about -7.

So, after spending the whole game "warring" the "correct" way, all it took to get pooped on was to take *1* city.

I consider that extremely punitive.

I am going to try and reload a save before I gifted the city to see if the warmongering penalty reduces on it's own.

So, yeah, the warmongering penalty is kinda out of whack.

 

[reee]

Warmonger penalties in this game are pretty obviously broken.

It is in serious need of tuning.

y lot fix need