Ok, I GET "warmongering"

[travisdead1]

I really do. In ancient times, up to near modern times, armies WERE NOT educated, civilized people, who were able to excerise empathy/sympathy for civilians. They were brutal, murderous thugs. Mother♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ baby killers and that's how you got them in your army...by the promise of pillage and♥♥♥♥♥♥ if they won the battle.

So when one civilization attacks you, and you go beat their army, attack and conquer it's city, what you have done is released a mob of brutal, thugish, mother♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥baby-killers unto a city that had no part in the attack against you, didn't care about their "Lords" because they didn't care about them, and just wanted to live and have a family. All to satisfy your poor brusised EGO. "He started it!"

You are a warmongering son of a b. I GET THAT.

That's real life. THIS IS A GAME.

I mean, forget that you are holding ancient armies to modern standards and punishing them accordingly to MODERN standards. It's just not fun. There are NO civilians and NO armies. It's a game. I want to go smack the crap out of some prick who picked on me, and don't want to have all the other AI players take out modern punishment on me.

You should be able to turn off "Warmongering" like you can turn off the various ways to win the game. With a check-marked box for turn off "Warmongering". And while you're at it, add boxes to turn off barbarians and "can't declare war" like Civ V BNW had.

I mean, leave the concept in the game, for those who like it. Leave the achievements, or make more, special achievements for playing "Emperor" level with "Warmongering" active. So those people can do that...and I DON'T HAVE TO.

In the end, the only thing that is important about this game is whether or not, I'M having fun, after spending MY $60 on it. It can be done without ruining it for everyone else who likes the concept, simply by adding the option to turn it off.

Ok, I'm done ranting as coherently as possible, about something that is ultimately meaningless in any case. I'm going to go back to the game where everyomne hates me and won't trade with me, because Brazil attacked me and then I conquered took 2 of it's cities.

[travisdead1]

Originally posted by leandrombraz:

Originally posted by travisdead1:

If I don't destroy them, They don't stop.

I remember being 6 or 7 and crying to my mother "don't step on the roach! He doesn't eat much!" and her saying to me "there will be millions everywhere If I don't kill them". And me responding, "but they won't eat much!".

The cities get in your way, they take land you want and agressively act to keep me fenced in. I don't want them crawling all over me. I would be happy to leave them territory to grow, but they do not accede to my wishes. And even though in real life a reasonable person wouldn't act with empathy to real people, in a fictional setting I paid for, I want to do it my way :)

And I could without hurting anyone else's game, if there were a setting to let me do so :)

They stop if you lower their military strength by killing their units, then increase your own so they don't declare war on you anymore. You can also take the cities and give back in the peace deal, as I said before. This will lower the city population and weaken the AI even if they keep the city and you get rid of the warmonger penalty.

As for them taking land you want, use the settler lens to find good spots that the AI might settle, if you don't want the AI to settle there just send a unit to that tile and keep an eye on the AI movement. Alternatively you can declare war before they settle (ancient era don't have warmonger penalty), steal their settler and peace out later with zero consequences.

There's ways to it your way, manipulate the AI without war or with smart use of war so they don't get in your way. You don't have to drown in warmonger penalties to do so. You either want to leave the AI alone and have the self control to do it or you don't. You can do it if you want to.


Anyway, I have nothing against they adding a no warmongering option if they want to but I totally disagree with your idea that just because you paid for the game it somehow own the right to do whatever you want. Not all games are meant to be sandboxes and the ones that aren't come with rules that are meant to offer a challenge. If the developers want to sell a specific experience and don't want that rules to be broken, they are on their right to do so, as long as they don't mislead you on their markerting and you know exactly what you're getting into. Civ offers a sandbox experience in the form of mods, while the official experience is locked to whatever the developers want the Civ experience to be, which for now means you have to deal with warmongering. If they change that later, awesome, if don't you can just mod the game to fit your taste.

Wait...there is a settler "lens"? When you click on settlers you can see where the game suggests to build cities. Is that what you mean? Or is there a feature I didn't know about?

But that creates another problem. You can only see areas you have already explored, and I just gave up exploring areas or building scouts. Scouts are worthless and pointless. You have to send an army out with a scout or it will get killed. And then what is the point of the scout? So you have to send out armies that can defend themselves. But I need them close in to my cities. The map around me doesn't get uncovered until the Industrial Age.

I want something that will uncover the map for me, that cannot be attacked, and cannot attack. I don't want to think about it. I want to hit "explore automatically" and just let it go, while I think about other things.

[travisdead1]

For Leandrombrazz

"Anyway, I have nothing against they adding a no warmongering option if they want to but I totally disagree with your idea that just because you paid for the game it somehow own the right to do whatever you want"

Yes it does :) That is exactly what it means :) I own it, I can and will do anything I want with it :)

"Not all games are meant to be sandboxes and the ones that aren't come with rules that are meant to offer a challenge. If the developers want to sell a specific experience and don't want that rules to be broken, they are on their right to do so..."

Yes ALL games are my personal sandbox. No one has the right to place rules on how I should enjoy a game...ESPECIALLY if I have paid for it. Firaxes has no right to tell me what to do, or how to have fun :) They may have added a feature they think is challenging. But if I, myself, the player, doesn't have fun doing it, they have no right to force us to do it :)

[travisdead1]

Originally posted by paugus:

Originally posted by travisdead1:

Well, yeah. That's what I said. It is very reasonable. That's real life. Real life is not fun, that's why we play games.

Real life is fun. Maybe change your habits or find a hobby. Anyway, you're playing a game that is essentially a historical fiction 4X. If you don't want a game that has similarities to reality, maybe don't play the type of game most specifically tailored to that. 'Namsain? Feel free to mod your game, but the complaints about warmongering are kinda weak currently, especially after they patched it.

PS People in here speaking in huge sweeping generalities about ancient warfare are operating off of some strange (and false) assumptions. "Conquering people and taking their land was no big deal." I mean, really?

Well Paugus, my hobby is playing computer games. I like Civ VI. It is fun, I have 200 hours in it already, 900+ in Civ V.

There are features I wish changed. I complain about them, because it works. Companies add to, change, remove stuff from games on player advice.

But I'm not even actually hoping for Firaxes to do something, maybe hoping they'll change it with another commerical release in the near future. As part of some DLC that is largely focused on something else, but mostly just hoping there are enough other people who hate the way "Warmongering" is implemented, that some one makes a good mod. Or not. Doesn't hurt to try, and trying works...and it often also fails. But so what? What have I lost in trying? :)

[Dayve]

Originally posted by travisdead1:

Originally posted by Dayve:

I don't think the ancient world even had a concept of "warmonger". To people back then war was the default state of life... you just had to hope it was the army of brutal killers raised by YOUR king that wins the battle.

In fact, what is the first period of peace in Europe that we know of? It was the Pax Romana under emperor Augustus. How was it achieved? It was achieved by Rome conquering and destroying everybody and making their land a part of the Roman Empire.

The modern concept of a warmonger nation didn't even come to exist until maybe the 18th century. Maybe even as late as the 19th century. Up until the point, conquering people and taking their land was no big deal.

"Warcrime" is a product of the Geneva Convention, which attempted to lay a basic ground work for how wars should be carried out, and everyone who signed on, had to do it that way. At least, that is how I understand it.

War crimes are different from warmongering. The two are very different. A warmonger is not necessarily a war criminal and a war criminal is not necessarily and warmonger.

Hitler and Genghis were warmongers and war criminals (even though war crimes weren't a thing when Genghis was around).

Gustavus Adolphus was a warmonger but not a war criminal.

Slobodan Milosevic was a war criminal but not a warmonger.

I don't think they can have war criminal in a Civ game because you can't do anything bad. So they can have warmonger, but it shouldn't be a thing until later, like in real life.

[Sable]

Originally posted by travisdead1:

Wait...there is a settler "lens"? When you click on settlers you can see where the game suggests to build cities. Is that what you mean? Or is there a feature I didn't know about?

It seems so. :) At the bottom left you'll find the strategic map and at the top left of that is the lenses button. Click on that and you'll find radio buttons to display all sorts of lenses. Settler is the 4th one down.

By default, there are shortcuts for these lenses. Type the number key according to its radio button position. Thus typing '4' will toggle the settler lens.

See:
http://i.imgur.com/37qe7B3.jpg

[jonnin]

Originally posted by travisdead1:

Originally posted by jonnin:

You can adjust the WM settings in the text files to get the game like you want it, so the AI of other factions ignores your defensive war.

I've seen those posts, and have edited several files. I am greatful people took the time to explain how to edit those files and what to change. Still, I haven't found anything that just completely removes the mechanic from the game, and I suspect it might be too intrinsic to remove. There haven't been any mods that I've found that turns it off. Maybe no one cares enough to do it. Maybe it can't really be done. I don't know which and there may be other reasons I haven't considered.

I dunno about total off. Changing the during war redux to 100% lets them declare war on me, I take their citys, they surrender all their stuff, and no other country that isnt the offender's ally cares a bit. This is as it should be, in my eyes, so that is how I play it. If I declare war, I get hated on. Fine.

[Rincewind]

Ai attacks you for no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ reason>proceed to wipe them>everyone hates you now.

Every game i play.....

[SamBC]

Originally posted by Rincewind:

Ai attacks you for no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ reason>proceed to wipe them>everyone hates you now.

Every game i play.....

Well, yeah. It makes sense because they "worry" you'll do the same to them.

[Dayve]

Originally posted by SamBC:

Originally posted by Rincewind:

Ai attacks you for no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ reason>proceed to wipe them>everyone hates you now.

Every game i play.....

Well, yeah. It makes sense because they "worry" you'll do the same to them.

Actually they should have allied with you against the guys who attacked you (unless they were allied with them, in which case they should either join in or break the alliance).

They shouldn't hate you for successfully defending yourself.

[donald23]

Originally posted by travisdead1:

For Leandrombrazz

"Anyway, I have nothing against they adding a no warmongering option if they want to but I totally disagree with your idea that just because you paid for the game it somehow own the right to do whatever you want"

Yes it does :) That is exactly what it means :) I own it, I can and will do anything I want with it :)

"Not all games are meant to be sandboxes and the ones that aren't come with rules that are meant to offer a challenge. If the developers want to sell a specific experience and don't want that rules to be broken, they are on their right to do so..."

Yes ALL games are my personal sandbox. No one has the right to place rules on how I should enjoy a game...ESPECIALLY if I have paid for it. Firaxes has no right to tell me what to do, or how to have fun :) They may have added a feature they think is challenging. But if I, myself, the player, doesn't have fun doing it, they have no right to force us to do it :)

Just to make sure you understand that: you do not own the game. You have bought the right to play it, but by no means own the contents of the game.

Having said that, a designer designs a game to which (s)he thinks it will be fun. That comes with rules. Some of those games provide the possibility to mod and thus change those rules or boundaries of those rules.
Seems to me you need to learn how to mod. Because Civilization is not a sandbox game.

Originally posted by Dayve:

Originally posted by SamBC:

Well, yeah. It makes sense because they "worry" you'll do the same to them.

Actually they should have allied with you against the guys who attacked you (unless they were allied with them, in which case they should either join in or break the alliance).

They shouldn't hate you for successfully defending yourself.

They don't hate you for defending yourself. You can kill all the invaders, push then back, burn their lands, destroy their districts and level their defenses.
The game simply doesn't count taking cities and keeping them (!!) as a defensive measure.

[I Am Atomic!]

Originally posted by travisdead1:

Wait...there is a settler "lens"? When you click on settlers you can see where the game suggests to build cities. Is that what you mean? Or is there a feature I didn't know about?

But that creates another problem. You can only see areas you have already explored, and I just gave up exploring areas or building scouts. Scouts are worthless and pointless. You have to send an army out with a scout or it will get killed. And then what is the point of the scout?

the settler lens is the same thing as when you click a settler, all the lenses are accessable from the button on the bottom left, next to the one you use to reveal tile yeilds.

scouting in advance of settling is absolutely essential, so that you know what territory to colonise first to secure you the most expansion room or to find that really juicy spot for a early rush city + scouts are usefull combined with a warror for traping and killing barb scouts, or nearby encampments before they spawn in reinforcements, to prevent barb raids.

combine with the bonus damage vs barbs policy untill you have enough military that barbs are not a threat to your cities and forces.

as for your "Scouts are worthless and pointless" claim, yes if you set them to auto they will die pretty damn fast to barbs. if you build 2-3, or build 1 and buy 2, then manually control them you can easily evade barbs, find several goody huts, and fully scout whatever land mass your on before other civs block much territory with their borders, unless playing on a huge pangea, in wich case you would probally need about 5 scouts

[SamBC]

Originally posted by Dayve:

Originally posted by SamBC:

Well, yeah. It makes sense because they "worry" you'll do the same to them.

Actually they should have allied with you against the guys who attacked you (unless they were allied with them, in which case they should either join in or break the alliance).

They shouldn't hate you for successfully defending yourself.

You didn't successfully defend yourself. You wiped a civ off the face of the map.

[Dayve]

Originally posted by SamBC:

Originally posted by Dayve:

Actually they should have allied with you against the guys who attacked you (unless they were allied with them, in which case they should either join in or break the alliance).

They shouldn't hate you for successfully defending yourself.

You didn't successfully defend yourself. You wiped a civ off the face of the map.

So? That's an absolutely valid action to have taken since the beginning of history all the way up to around the middle ages. The entire Roman Empire was built on people attacking Rome and Rome defeating and absorbing them.

Might makes right, all the way up until Napoleon days.

[donald23]

Originally posted by Dayve:

Originally posted by SamBC:

You didn't successfully defend yourself. You wiped a civ off the face of the map.

So? That's an absolutely valid action to have taken since the beginning of history all the way up to around the middle ages. The entire Roman Empire was built on people attacking Rome and Rome defeating and absorbing them.

Might makes right, all the way up until Napoleon days.

Those empires were no doubt considered warmongers by the other civilizations in their time. I know Napoleon was considered a warmonger and I would be very surprised if Rome wasn't.

[SamBC]

I'm pretty sure Rome was. Of course, many of their competitors caved in and became client kingdoms and such (at least initially), because in the real world that's better than getting what Carthage got.

This is a game, however, and the AI are also "thinking" about winning and losing, so "we'll do what you want, just don't kill me" approach wouldn't make a good game AI.