Why does everyone hate me?
- Thread starter Boygor
- Start date
snarzberry
Emperor
probably because you're a warmongering douche 
(are you?) Aggressive behaviour is what makes most civs dislike you, specifically declaring war and wiping out a civ completely. Or you may be playing on too low a difficulty level and you are pulling away from the AI and they don't like you because they think you're winning. If you stay small, middle of the road and don't expand into land that AI's are likely to have pegged for their own then it's quite possible to stay on good terms with at least most of the civs in the game.
(are you?) Aggressive behaviour is what makes most civs dislike you, specifically declaring war and wiping out a civ completely. Or you may be playing on too low a difficulty level and you are pulling away from the AI and they don't like you because they think you're winning. If you stay small, middle of the road and don't expand into land that AI's are likely to have pegged for their own then it's quite possible to stay on good terms with at least most of the civs in the game.
woodshadows
King
Just expect certain leaders like Ramkhamhaeng (sp?) and Kamehameha to periodically denounce you. This denuncation shouldn't be taken personal, they just get lonely and want to chat with you every two turns to either denounce you or ask for open borders or declarations of friendship.
revelation216
NQ Civilopedian
Speaking for dom victory here:
When you have captured the capital and severely crippled a civ it's basically a waste of time taking the rest of his cities. It just means more time grinding him down when you could be working on taking another capital, and also u get extra unhappiness from taking all those cities, even if you plan on razing (as i next to always do).
When you have captured the capital and severely crippled a civ it's basically a waste of time taking the rest of his cities. It just means more time grinding him down when you could be working on taking another capital, and also u get extra unhappiness from taking all those cities, even if you plan on razing (as i next to always do).
This. The AI is completely irrational and outright "dumb" in Civ5.
When one AI denounces, others you aren't on great terms with may follow. This can start a stupid chain reaction where every AI in the game denounces you just because one guy is mentally unbalanced and denounces for no reason (I've been bafflingly denounced by Alex the turn after I met him on several occasions). Of course the first Civ might denounce you for legitimate reasons too - like if you backstabbed him or crushed his civ and left him with one tundra city, but the denounce mechanic is still not all that well concieved.
binhthuy71
Emperor
You will be denounced if you expand too close to another Civ ("Too close" being anywhere from next to them to half a continent away.)
You will be denounced and usually DoW'd within a few turns if your combined military/economic strength is below the average of your opponents.
You will be denounced as a matter of routine by the Civs mentioned above.
You will be denounced if you Ally a CS that was previously allied with another Civ.
You will be denounced simply for being first or second in score.
Etc.
It's a feature of CiV. I take being denounced as a sign that I'm doing something right.
You will be denounced and usually DoW'd within a few turns if your combined military/economic strength is below the average of your opponents.
You will be denounced as a matter of routine by the Civs mentioned above.
You will be denounced if you Ally a CS that was previously allied with another Civ.
You will be denounced simply for being first or second in score.
Etc.
It's a feature of CiV. I take being denounced as a sign that I'm doing something right.
ense7en
n7
This seems to be true.
Usually if you are doing somewhat well in some way, the AI gets paranoid, haha.
It can be extremely frustrating i'll admit, but i've gotten more used to it.
I find on larger land-mass maps where you are fighting for space it's pretty much a guarantee that you'll be pissing them off somehow.
RebelCapitalist
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2010
- Messages
- 15
Waste of time? Nooooo.
I'm a warmonger by nature (98% of the time easily). I find great satisfaction in taking city by city. If the the Civ was talking crap, not trading, etc, I'll look for his worst city (like a 1-tile island) and let him keep it. Then I just sit on his borders the rest of the game.
But yes, I find managing happiness to be a fun little and frustrating game. Last game I played, I ended up attacking Egypt and going nonstop while taking his 27 cities. Each turn I was getting creative and spending coin to fast rush anything that would give me even 1 happiness to keep at 0 or minus a couple.
Becomedeath
The Destroyer
Denouncing is a great mechanism.
It's like Civs advertising that they want you to invade them.
CIV: "I denounce you as you're a warmonger"
ME: "And you thought bringing yourself to my attention was a good idea because..."
It's like Civs advertising that they want you to invade them.
CIV: "I denounce you as you're a warmonger"
ME: "And you thought bringing yourself to my attention was a good idea because..."
Jacques Lamerde
Chieftain
I love being denounced. I also believe it means you are doing something right. I also get a good laugh when a leader contacts me every couple of turns just to hurl insults.(It's come to my attention that your empire seems to be quite puny) etc. I only wish I had the option to insult them as well. Also I would like the option to contact another leader to say that I am glad they share my disgust with Greece, etc.
Funny stuff, I wish there was more of that. Reminds me of the blackmail/threats I would get from leaders in Civ Rev. These humorous touches greatly enhance my enjoyment of the game.
Funny stuff, I wish there was more of that. Reminds me of the blackmail/threats I would get from leaders in Civ Rev. These humorous touches greatly enhance my enjoyment of the game.
eris
King
I think it depends on both play style and play level. I play a mostly peaceful Prince game and this does not happen to me all the time. I have the occasional game where things go wrong diplomatically, but mostly I can find a side to pick and be friends with. If you are playing at thi level and are at all agressive, they hate you because you kill people.
If you play on higher levels many of the bonuses combine to make diplomatic efforts much more of a challenge in a game that has little mechanism for working with that. Crowding and multiple rushes are part of that. In that case, they hate you because the devs think that makes the game harder.
If you play on higher levels many of the bonuses combine to make diplomatic efforts much more of a challenge in a game that has little mechanism for working with that. Crowding and multiple rushes are part of that. In that case, they hate you because the devs think that makes the game harder.
Civs with random personalities act no different!
It figures! Thats because they are all the same.
Firaxis should add some real individualism to the way AI leaderheads make choices. If Ghandi and Napoleon sat at dinner together. I am sure their views on military matters would vary like night and day. Also, Napoleon loved to wage war. He is not going to be all fired upset at the Chinese leader, halfway across the world who is waging her own war, for her own benefit. I feel Napoleon who say exactly this, "BRAVO MON CHER!" But not in CiV, Napoleon is madder than hell at someone exactly like himself. To me it makes no sense. Civs that far apart should affect diplomacy to make it so, it is harder for civs farther away to get upset. Local diplomacy should remain the same. When you share local borders, tension bulids much easier. The solution, or at least a big step forward in fixing diplomacy, would be distance modifiers. These would help reduce the chance of civs far away, ruining good relations, due to a far away civs local concerns. In other words, a civ that is across the world, who cannot directly influence another civs choices, should not be overly concerned if they are waging war or not. It does not make sense for the Iroquois all the way in North America, who are having beneficial trade relations with China, all the way in Asia, to break off relations, because China is at war locally in her own sphere of influence. The Iroquois would say, "There is nothing we can do about that, we have to worry about our own people, and our trade relations benefit us here, China is still our friend, why should we cut our own throats, because China is fighting?" Big Chief would toke up that peace pipe real nice and say, "China friend, we keep peace, we make much business, use money destroy white man!" 
It figures! Thats because they are all the same.
Firaxis should add some real individualism to the way AI leaderheads make choices. If Ghandi and Napoleon sat at dinner together. I am sure their views on military matters would vary like night and day. Also, Napoleon loved to wage war. He is not going to be all fired upset at the Chinese leader, halfway across the world who is waging her own war, for her own benefit. I feel Napoleon who say exactly this, "BRAVO MON CHER!" But not in CiV, Napoleon is madder than hell at someone exactly like himself. To me it makes no sense. Civs that far apart should affect diplomacy to make it so, it is harder for civs farther away to get upset. Local diplomacy should remain the same. When you share local borders, tension bulids much easier. The solution, or at least a big step forward in fixing diplomacy, would be distance modifiers. These would help reduce the chance of civs far away, ruining good relations, due to a far away civs local concerns. In other words, a civ that is across the world, who cannot directly influence another civs choices, should not be overly concerned if they are waging war or not. It does not make sense for the Iroquois all the way in North America, who are having beneficial trade relations with China, all the way in Asia, to break off relations, because China is at war locally in her own sphere of influence. The Iroquois would say, "There is nothing we can do about that, we have to worry about our own people, and our trade relations benefit us here, China is still our friend, why should we cut our own throats, because China is fighting?" Big Chief would toke up that peace pipe real nice and say, "China friend, we keep peace, we make much business, use money destroy white man!" 
The_Quasar
King
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2010
- Messages
- 862
I wholeheartedly agree with this, we should be able to hurl insults back (for a small diplo hit), and it'd feel so much better!
I also agree about contacting another leader to tell them that I am glad they share my disgust of another civ too (perhaps for a small positive diplo addition).
I agree the humorous additions add to the enjoyment, but I feel this part is unfinished, and there is quite a bit that could be added to improve it.
Breezin
Warlord
I wish sometimes the AI you just crushed would start to suck up to you like they did in IV.
You think that this would be smart tactic as an act of self preservation rather than try to antagonize you like they do in V leading their impending destruction.
I usually had pity on a Civ I destroyed in IV and helped them out if they were nice to me after the dust settled. If not, they were history.
binhthuy71
Emperor
Maybe it's pure luck but, if I just cripple a Civ its leader sues for peace (Under usually ruinous terms for them), he or she is Friendly after a turn or two.
NotSure
King
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 712
Some of them used to do this, but they just patched that out.
That is lucky, or you must not be taking capitals. Since they patched "AI will recognize when you've conquered their original capital" I am sure to get a denouncement the turn after peace. You can even see the negative modifier on the drop down.
Breezin
Warlord
I've had that happen often too. They'll love me right after peace is declared; however, a few turns after that they start the insults and denouncements. Soon after that, I decide to teach them a final lesson on silence and humility.
Similar threads
