Why the warmonger penalty is unrealistic...

[LoneRebel]

I'm curious about something. This new warmongering penalty for conquering cities that's inversely proportional to the number of cities, does it scale with the number of cities the civ whose city you conquered has, or with the number of cities every civ has? I'd always assumed it was self-evident that "number of cities" referred to the number of cities of that one civ, but then a post I read recently made me think it might refer to the number of cities of all civs put together.

 

[Aristos]

void CvDiplomacyAIHelpers::ApplyWarmongerPenalties(PlayerTypes eConqueror, PlayerTypes eConquered)
{
	CvPlayer &kConqueringPlayer = GET_PLAYER(eConqueror);

	for(int iMajorLoop = 0; iMajorLoop < MAX_MAJOR_CIVS; iMajorLoop++)
	{
		PlayerTypes eMajor = (PlayerTypes)iMajorLoop;
		if (eConqueror != eMajor && GET_PLAYER(eMajor).isAlive())
		{
			// Have I met the player who conquered the city?
			CvTeam &kAffectedTeam = GET_TEAM(GET_PLAYER(eMajor).getTeam());
			if (kAffectedTeam.isHasMet(kConqueringPlayer.getTeam()))
			{
				int iNumCities = max(GET_PLAYER(eConquered).getNumCities(), 1);
				int iWarmongerOffset = CvDiplomacyAIHelpers::GetWarmongerOffset(iNumCities);

				// Half penalty if I'm also at war with conquered civ
				if (kAffectedTeam.isAtWar(GET_PLAYER(eConquered).getTeam()))
				{
					iWarmongerOffset /= 2;
				}

				GET_PLAYER(eMajor).GetDiplomacyAI()->ChangeOtherPlayerWarmongerAmount(eConqueror, iWarmongerOffset);
			}
		}
	}
}

int CvDiplomacyAIHelpers::GetWarmongerOffset(int iNumCitiesRemaining)
{
	int iEstimatedCitiesOnMap = GC.getMap().getWorldInfo().GetEstimatedNumCities();
	int iActualCitiesOnMap = GC.getGame().getNumCities();
	int iWarmongerOffset = (1000 * iEstimatedCitiesOnMap) / (max(iActualCitiesOnMap, 1) * iNumCitiesRemaining);

	return iWarmongerOffset;
}

In a few words, the Conqueror WP is bigger:

1) The higher the ratio between estimated number of cities (related to map size) and real number of cities is; or, the younger the history is.
2) The lesser number of cities remaining the conquered has.

No distinction for capital at all, or size of city.

Finishing off a civ is treated in another segment of code.

 

[LoneRebel]

Just conquered two cities from my neighbor Germany, who attacked me first, and already, every other civ believes me to be a "warmongering menace to the world", even the ones who tolerate warmongers, like Ashurbanipal.

However, it hasn't led to any denouncements or wars with anyone else yet. Germany denounced me of course, and I denounced them right back.

Note that at the time I conquered those cities, all eight civs already had around five cities each. Germany certainly did.

 

[nokmirt]

They have this game all messed up. I hope they do better with Civ 6.

 

[LoneRebel]

Well, I wasn't complaining about it...yet. Things are fine so far.

Though at some point in the future, I'll probably have to add to my warmonger score further and take Persepolis to cripple Persia, who is wonder-spamming like crazy and seems set for a CV.

 

[j51]

I just reduced the warmonger hate value for each leader in my mod: a ton if they were historically warlike, some if they weren't, and just one point for Gandhi and Haile. That seemed to work well.

 

[nokmirt]

I just reduced the warmonger hate value for each leader in my mod: a ton if they were historically warlike, some if they weren't, and just one point for Gandhi and Haile. That seemed to work well.

That sounds like a good idea. I could make a mod for it easy enough as well.

 

[CivAddict2013]

Haha again, took one city and the AI hates me the whole game. Even if initially, you don't get a penalty; the AI gangs up on you eventually.

What's funny is the AI's who take out entire civilizations seem to get away with warmongering. But you take one city and the AI gangs up on you.

 

[forcedalt]

ITT: people that refuse to adapt to new style of diplomatic warmongering, but are quick to get all Kanye West when they lose a game.

I'm going to let you post! I'm going to let you post , but , the Civ4 AI should've won tonight! The Civ 5 AI hates black people!

Haha again, took one city and the AI hates me the whole game. Even if initially, you don't get a penalty; the AI gangs up on you eventually.

What's funny is the AI's who take out entire civilizations seem to get away with warmongering. But you take one city and the AI gangs up on you.

yes, the seeming "double standard" makes it particularly annoying.
It seems like : all the other civ's had a slightly different thing going on. The AI eventually backing off on the vitriol after a war had ended ,and , the non-involved AI's detaching from the hate party pretty much as soon as the dust settled.
The thing that makes it worthy of complaining about for me: you can get to a point of complete unforgivably , where: no amount of time ,and/or friendly gestures will ever,ever,ever bring the other civ out of : complete and total frothing seething hate for all eternity. It might be nice if : there was a way, any way at all , to ever get an AI to forgive you for anything ever.
What if the slider could get perma-stuck at the other end as well? Then you would have a rival that : offered friendship ,and , sang your praises even while you launch nuke after nuke after nuke,razed cities, pillaged....

I just reduced the warmonger hate value for each leader in my mod: a ton if they were historically warlike, some if they weren't, and just one point for Gandhi and Haile. That seemed to work well.

Hmmmmm.....interesting. Is there a way to : instead of just reducing that initial value , to just , have the diplomacy slider very gradually settle back to the middle ,which , i think , is what all us Civ 5 AI whiners are really looking for?

I agree that Civ was never supposed to be "realistic" Realism not being a factor ,why try to make the AI players more "realistic" ,especially if it hurts the game play so much for so many?
At this point , if they want to keep it going , the Civ6 AI should : argue about your game option choices : Attila says: "Epic speed is , so ghey, newb. you should have gone with fast."
Alexander says : "I told you to go max CS's a-hole. If your going to screw me : i'm out of here." (Alexander has left the game)

 

[MadHaxxor]

I believe liberation removes warmonger penalties. Although, I believe that most wars pre-industrial shouldn't have such an adverse affect on foreign affairs especially if you haven't met the civs yet. If you want to see true warmonger penalties you should play online

 

[LoneRebel]

Haha again, took one city and the AI hates me the whole game. Even if initially, you don't get a penalty; the AI gangs up on you eventually.

What's funny is the AI's who take out entire civilizations seem to get away with warmongering. But you take one city and the AI gangs up on you.

Perceived AI bias against the human is commonly reported, but other players who have looked into the code have already said repeatedly that the AI is programmed to treat humans and other AIs in the exact same way. Except for the intrigue sharing system, which actually benefits humans only.

 

[Aristos]

Perceived AI bias against the human is commonly reported, but other players who have looked into the code have already said repeatedly that the AI is programmed to treat humans and other AIs in the exact same way. Except for the intrigue sharing system, which actually benefits humans only.

Yep.

It has become a war of repetition... I wonder who will win, the repeated fallacy or the repeated code show????

 

[forcedalt]

Perceived AI bias against the human is commonly reported, but other players who have looked into the code have already said repeatedly that the AI is programmed to treat humans and other AIs in the exact same way.

Yeah , makes sense. Why on gods green earth would they : actually code such bias in?
Perhaps the double standard is perceived ,because : a human player will : most likely act differently than a computer one ,and therefor : have to react to different circumstances created by human involvement.
It creates a hope that : the "problem" may not be as monumental as it seems. When i first started having "AI difficulties" , i perceived many things as being "wrong" ,but , as i complain , and , more importantly , read the complaints of others , it seems like the main issue might come down to something small and easily changeable.
I reiterate my idea for : the diplomacy slider gravitating towards neutral when : you have no interaction with the other Civ. Over a very long period of time. I would leave it up to smarter people to , decide on the exact metrics , but , i think 200 years would be long enough for almost any transgressions to be , water under the bridge , considering : any of the actual "Civ citizens" who were around during a reign of "evil atrocious warmongering" would be long dead by then.


There are other probably unrelated issues , aside from the rash warmonger hate , such as : the AI sometimes having trouble with unit movement, but , there are actually some somewhat talented modders that seem to be making headway on solving unit movement problems. Less progress has been made in the diplomacy issues , i think its because the complaints make it seem huge , when , maybe , its just a small problem that : creates a big symptom.

 

[shaglio]

It has become a war of repetition... I wonder who will win, the repeated fallacy or the repeated code show????

The repeated fallacy side will definitely win. "What we got here is a failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach . . . "

 

[stickyfingers]

For example: say you see (because you are using heavy scouting, of course...) that some AI is clearly becoming the bully of the known world... pressing on CS, maybe attacking them, building up military... observing this, you may have a good bet on this AI conquering some CS or a city or two from another civ in the first half or earlier. That AI is now your "liberation campaign" target. Once you have a "liberator" target, you can also plan on taking that nasty neighbour's capital (even if he is not nasty ), and further down the road liberate a city or two from the "liberation" target to counter your initially huge WP... that is just one option of many.

Point is, player has to think more before just pulling the trigger and expecting an easy walk. That is good.

Problem for me is let's say you want to play a domination game, but it's just a love fest between the AIs. Let's say the only people close to you are peaceful and even offering friendship and there's no major wars. No one is threatening or conquering any CS. What do you do then? Put your thumb up your butt and win another peaceful science victory or else do an unprovoked attack on someone, which will eventually spiral into the whole world DOWing you once you take enough cities. You could wait for a war to break out, it will eventually happen, but it might be in a place that is just not feasible for you to get troops to and fight effectively.

The main problem as I see it is now the game/situation decides for you whether domination is possible (or at least if it's a good idea). The other VCs you get to pick and try out in any game. The world never explodes just because you tried to do a cultural victory.

Either you get assigned to a violent game where there are "just" wars/enemies or you become the global enemy if it doesn't happen to be a violent game.

 

[LoneRebel]

Problem for me is let's say you want to play a domination game, but it's just a love fest between the AIs. Let's say the only people close to you are peaceful and even offering friendship and there's no major wars. No one is threatening or conquering any CS. What do you do then? Put your thumb up your butt and win another peaceful science victory or else do an unprovoked attack on someone, which will eventually spiral into the whole world DOWing you once you take enough cities. You could wait for a war to break out, it will eventually happen, but it might be in a place that is just not feasible for you to get troops to and fight effectively.

The main problem as I see it is now the game/situation decides for you whether domination is possible (or at least if it's a good idea). The other VCs you get to pick and try out in any game. The world never explodes just because you tried to do a cultural victory.

Either you get assigned to a violent game where there are "just" wars/enemies or you become the global enemy if it doesn't happen to be a violent game.

Good point, I suppose I want to see what the others have to say about this.

 

[troublmaker]

The warmongerer penalty is a little weird.

I played a game in which I was an Extreme Warmongerer. So I declared war on someone who was near one of my allied city-state and I liberated it three times. Now I stopped being an extreme warmongerer and this guy became one. Now I would gain liberation bonuses for conquering this guy, which I did. After capturing my third city from him it turned into Minor Warmongerer.

 

[Sagax]

I just think it's unrealistic. In WW2 Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. But do Americans still in this day hate the Japanese for it? No. In Colonial times, Britain ruled over the United States and lost to the United States. Do you still think Americans hold a grudge against Brits? No.

Chinese and Koreans still hold grudge against Japanese for their invasion.

I don't feel that uncomfortable with the current way warmongering is dealt. There will always be a black sheep in the game that you can gang up on with other civs and receive negligible penalty if you conquer wisely. If your ally conquers too much, you know who will become the new black sheep, and the cycle continues.

The rest of my post is too long and more of a chaotic analysis that may be hard to follow (or even make no sense ), so I`ll hide it in spoiler. TLDR - the way AI reacts to early warmongering is correct per se; however, warmongering issue may be caused by the almost unobstructed access to information in game.

Spoiler :

I agree that the current warmongering framework makes little sense: you conquer a city in Classical-Medieval and the world goes nuts despite not having a strong sense of global community, but apparently doing the same thing in Modern Era in front of the Word-freaking-Congress is much less severe. And then it struck me: other civs overreact to early war because there is one aspect that early-warmongering players take for granted, yet the game never gives it to us. This aspect is lack of information about events worldwide.

Consider an Early-Modern world (late Renaissance in game): we have Europe and Middle East with numerous established kingdoms close to each other. Marco Polo's job is long done, and there are trade routes with the Far East, so the existence of the countries in this region is acknowledged, but that's about it - these countries are miles away and the West receives little information about them (maybe embassies, but it takes time with the technology of that period).

In this set-up, if any civ in Europe decides to go for domination, its neighbors will notice that pretty fast and will start thinking about taking action before the conqueror gets out of control. However, if China decides to go for domination, nobody in Europe will care, because they have no access to information about the situation in the Far East. They will show concerns once they discover that China got the entire Asia and now is knocking on the door of the Middle East. So information matters, and we have some real historical examples of this: for example, just as China didn't care about Napoleon's conquest, Europe didn't care when China was conquered by the Manchu. Not for diplomatic reasons, but simply because the information exchange was poor between Europe and China that isolated itself from the rest of the world.

Now use this set-up in Civ5. The information is spread with little to no obstacles: meeting a civ and seeing its lands on the map equals knowing all of its geopolitical actions. You just met China and Japan with your scouts? Now you will always know when they go on war against each other. Clear Fog of War a little more and now you can see who has an insatiable hunger for other civs' lands. As a result of this advanced access to information relative to the actual time period, AI sees the whole map as a tiny crowded world like Europe in the mentioned set-up. The code mentioned by Aristos supports my thought: AI does what it does because it has easy access to the required data. This is the reason why warmongering on Continents map is easier - you can wipe out your neighbors on the continent without consequences as long as you don't backstab and are not discovered by another continent - AI on the other continent hasn't seen you and thus doesn't have access to data on estimated/actual number of cities of your foes.

And you can't blame AI for using this information, because we players do the same: we know who is has too many wonders, who generates too much culture or who may become a military threat. So the only tweak I can think about without completely reworking the current information system is probably adding some more factors into the penalty code:

1. The warmonger's distance to AI's own lands.
2. AI's relationship with the conqueror and the victim.

Toning down penalty's fade time by just a little bit would also help, but it's far from being crucial.

 

[apocalypse105]

Chinese and Koreans still hold grudge against Japanese for their invasion.

I don't feel that uncomfortable with the current way warmongering is dealt. There will always be a black sheep in the game that you can gang up on with other civs and receive negligible penalty if you conquer wisely. If your ally conquers too much, you know who will become the new black sheep, and the cycle continues.

The rest of my post is too long and more of a chaotic analysis that may be hard to follow (or even make no sense ), so I`ll hide it in spoiler. TLDR - the way AI reacts to early warmongering is correct per se; however, warmongering issue may be caused by the almost unobstructed access to information in game.

Spoiler :

I agree that the current warmongering framework makes little sense: you conquer a city in Classical-Medieval and the world goes nuts despite not having a strong sense of global community, but apparently doing the same thing in Modern Era in front of the Word-freaking-Congress is much less severe. And then it struck me: other civs overreact to early war because there is one aspect that early-warmongering players take for granted, yet the game never gives it to us. This aspect is lack of information about events worldwide.

Consider an Early-Modern world (late Renaissance in game): we have Europe and Middle East with numerous established kingdoms close to each other. Marco Polo's job is long done, and there are trade routes with the Far East, so the existence of the countries in this region is acknowledged, but that's about it - these countries are miles away and the West receives little information about them (maybe embassies, but it takes time with the technology of that period).

In this set-up, if any civ in Europe decides to go for domination, its neighbors will notice that pretty fast and will start thinking about taking action before the conqueror gets out of control. However, if China decides to go for domination, nobody in Europe will care, because they have no access to information about the situation in the Far East. They will show concerns once they discover that China got the entire Asia and now is knocking on the door of the Middle East. So information matters, and we have some real historical examples of this: for example, just as China didn't care about Napoleon's conquest, Europe didn't care when China was conquered by the Manchu. Not for diplomatic reasons, but simply because the information exchange was poor between Europe and China that isolated itself from the rest of the world.

Now use this set-up in Civ5. The information is spread with little to no obstacles: meeting a civ and seeing its lands on the map equals knowing all of its geopolitical actions. You just met China and Japan with your scouts? Now you will always know when they go on war against each other. Clear Fog of War a little more and now you can see who has an insatiable hunger for other civs' lands. As a result of this advanced access to information relative to the actual time period, AI sees the whole map as a tiny crowded world like Europe in the mentioned set-up. The code mentioned by Aristos supports my thought: AI does what it does because it has easy access to the required data. This is the reason why warmongering on Continents map is easier - you can wipe out your neighbors on the continent without consequences as long as you don't backstab and are not discovered by another continent - AI on the other continent hasn't seen you and thus doesn't have access to data on estimated/actual number of cities of your foes.

And you can't blame AI for using this information, because we players do the same: we know who is has too many wonders, who generates too much culture or who may become a military threat. So the only tweak I can think about without completely reworking the current information system is probably adding some more factors into the penalty code:

1. The warmonger's distance to AI's own lands.
2. AI's relationship with the conqueror and the victim.

Toning down penalty's fade time by just a little bit would also help, but it's far from being crucial.

But not the hole word hold a grudge against japan only the people they where at war with ? Get it?

Imagine the netherlands be mad at japan for invading korea at the 20 th century say what?

 

[Alia]

I agree with the OP. It's unrealistic, and what's more it's not all that fun to be forced to dance around warmonger penalties. You can - for example what you do before you meet a leader doesn't count to them, you can let city-states do the actual capturing, or you can let another leader do it - it's just not very fun that you absolutely have to, or every last civ in the game will hate your guts (except Montezuma).

What I've always personally thought about it is that if someone declares war on you, at the very least, you shouldn't get huge warmonger penalties for ANYTHING you do to them during that war.

And I also don't think it's fair how when exactly a civ will hate you for it is handled. Certain civs just don't mind as much, but as far as I can tell they don't give two fish who you're doing it to! I'm sorry, but if Germany hates Babylon enough, I should actually get a bonus with Germany for every city of Babylon I take, and not the other way round.