Did They Make the AI Absolute Imbeciles?

[Helen Keller Light Festival]

It's been a few months (more than half a year) since the last game of Civ 6 I played. I started a game on Prince, and before anyone even had a chance to research walls Dido declared war on me. No problems: I wasn't really building much of an army at that point anyway. I swiftly beat back her army of two warriors and a slingman, took two of her cities, decided enough was enough and sued for peace.

She refused any peace offer that did not end in me returning one of her cities.

What? She declared war on ME. I had 150 grievances against her, and she had -no- military, -no- economy, and (as I later found out) one city left. She should be begging for peace! So instead I marched on, took another city -- her last, as I discovered upon taking it -- and ended her.

Now everybody hates me for being a warmonger.

Again, I emphasise: she declared war on -me-, then -she- refused the peace agreement. But somehow I'm the bad guy. Right.

So just when that penalty is nearly decayed, Germany and Sweden declare a joint war on me. With a massive sigh I pull my armies back across my borders and start dealing with Germany. Once again I capture two cities and try to sue for peace. Once again Germany is refusing any kind of peace offering unless I give them something in return.

Oh yeah, and as an added cherry on top, I tried making peace with Sweden (who has not so-much as shown their face in this conflict), but they're also refusing unless I offer them a pay-out.

What kind of moronic AI is this? I'm demonstrating the ability to absolutely crush them, ask for nothing in return except what I conquered (which supposedly is well-within the grievances accrued), and they expect payment for a war they started. It makes absolutely no sense, follows no line of logic, and forces me into the role of a warmonger unless I want to pay tributes to the people who attacked me.

I don't remember the AI being this idiotic. Did they change something in a patch somewhere along the way, or is this particular game just bugged/wonky? I'm about ready to just drop it, because I suspect the cycle is just going to repeat itself: wipe out an AI too stupid to accept a perfectly reasonable peace-treaty, then get declared war on because I'm a terrible tyrant. Rinse + repeat until the whole world is dead.

[Quineloe]

I just love how they carefully fine tune warmonger penalties over and over and over and over, only just to copy the exact same mechanic with grievances. You take one city? everyone denounces you, not because of warmonger, but because "you've caused others grievances".

Oh what a lovely special snowflake world CIV6 Diplomacy is now. I'm amazed you don't just start on denounce with everyone because of hurtsies feelsies.

[Aachen]

Wow, you can’t capture a city without being serially denounced?

[Quineloe]

Yes, but now the reason for the chain denounces is "grievances caused to others" and not warmongering anymore, so there's that. That's progress?

[Aachen]

Yes. Sounds like progress.

[Helen Keller Light Festival]

The thing I don't get is, I'm the one with the grievances AGAINST them. I thought the whole point of the grievances was to help off-set the warmonger stuff. What's the point if I can't capture a city or two and peace out? The whole thing is just stupid.

[Fatbill]

The AI in this game is the worst in any Civ game so far.
The AI in Civ 5 was nothing special (but that can be fixed now), but the AI in Civ 6 is all but brain dead.

[leandrombraz]

The AI usually don't make peace if it sees an opportunity to hurt you. A city with low health/defenses, units that seem easy to kill (low health, in range of their attacks). If the AI refuses to peace out, just pillage all their stuff, because pillaging is good, retreat and give it time, they will come around.

Alternatively, you can capture one more city than you're planning to keep, then return it in the peace deal. This is something you absolutely should do if you're planning to have a good relationship with your current enemy, since returning a city also eliminates a -18 relationship penalty that you get with your enemy when you conquer their cities.

Capturing the final city of a civilization give you 150 grievances with everyone. It's by far the worst thing you can do. If you want to eliminate another Civ without consequences, you can:

- Use loyalty. Just loyalty flip the last city. There will be no consequences;

- If they have a city that isn't theirs, leave it as last to conquer, then liberate it. Liberating the last city will deny the penalty for conquering it. If it's a city-state, it will give you positive relationship with everyone. If other civs have grievances against you, it will be reduced;

- Make friendship/alliance with everyone you care about before you conquer. Friends/allies can't denounce nor declare war on each other, so they won't be able to do anything about it for 30 turns, and even after that, the AI usually accept to renew friendships, as long as you ask for it on the same turn it expires. If you do that, the grievances will fade long before the AI is able to do anything about it. Try also to invite them to your war, that will give another positive relationship modifier.

Originally posted by Quineloe:

I just love how they carefully fine tune warmonger penalties over and over and over and over, only just to copy the exact same mechanic with grievances. You take one city? everyone denounces you, not because of warmonger, but because "you've caused others grievances".

Oh what a lovely special snowflake world CIV6 Diplomacy is now. I'm amazed you don't just start on denounce with everyone because of hurtsies feelsies.

Same as the other thread, learn how to use the mechanics. That's absolutely not true. If you have grievances against your enemy, just don't bite more than you can chew, that's, see how much grievances you're getting for conquering the city and keep in mind that you get only half the penalty when you conquer the city. The other half is applied when you ask them to cede the city. If you don't have grievances, declare friendships/alliances to secure your relationships. That will give you plenty of room to conquer and fade your grievances before you see any consequences.

[Panic Fire]

Originally posted by Helen Keller Light Festival:

The thing I don't get is, I'm the one with the grievances AGAINST them. I thought the whole point of the grievances was to help off-set the warmonger stuff. What's the point if I can't capture a city or two and peace out? The whole thing is just stupid.

Because you are capturing there cities. You should give them the cities back in return for other things like money, luxories ect. The fact that you want to keep there cities is warmongering. The fact that you destroyed an enemy civilization is warmongering. It isn't that hard of a concept.

[Helen Keller Light Festival]

Originally posted by Panic Fire:

Originally posted by Helen Keller Light Festival:

The thing I don't get is, I'm the one with the grievances AGAINST them. I thought the whole point of the grievances was to help off-set the warmonger stuff. What's the point if I can't capture a city or two and peace out? The whole thing is just stupid.

Because you are capturing there cities. You should give them the cities back in return for other things like money, luxories ect. The fact that you want to keep there cities is warmongering. The fact that you destroyed an enemy civilization is warmongering. It isn't that hard of a concept.

A "warmonger" who never declares war, nor has ever declared it in the past, is, in fact, a very difficult concept to grasp. One might even say it's an outright paradox. That one would be me.

Maybe if there were more useful things you could demand in peace treaties, I'd be willing to give back cities. In the philosophy of Civ though, cities are too valuable. Yeah, I'm going to trade back a city for 5 gold-per-turn and some oranges. Yup. Seems logical.

[Panic Fire]

Originally posted by Helen Keller Light Festival:

Originally posted by Panic Fire:

Because you are capturing there cities. You should give them the cities back in return for other things like money, luxories ect. The fact that you want to keep there cities is warmongering. The fact that you destroyed an enemy civilization is warmongering. It isn't that hard of a concept.

A "warmonger" who never declares war, nor has ever declared it in the past, is, in fact, a very difficult concept to grasp. One might even say it's an outright paradox. That one would be me.

Maybe if there were more useful things you could demand in peace treaties, I'd be willing to give back cities. In the philosophy of Civ though, cities are too valuable. Yeah, I'm going to trade back a city for 5 gold-per-turn and some oranges. Yup. Seems logical.

Why are you taking there cities to begin with? You sent troops in and took there cities. You then want to keep there cities. That's warmongering. You are using military force to foribly take cities. Warmongering. Doesn't matter if you declare war or not.

[Helen Keller Light Festival]

Originally posted by Panic Fire:

Originally posted by Helen Keller Light Festival:

A "warmonger" who never declares war, nor has ever declared it in the past, is, in fact, a very difficult concept to grasp. One might even say it's an outright paradox. That one would be me.

Maybe if there were more useful things you could demand in peace treaties, I'd be willing to give back cities. In the philosophy of Civ though, cities are too valuable. Yeah, I'm going to trade back a city for 5 gold-per-turn and some oranges. Yup. Seems logical.

Why are you taking there cities to begin with? You sent troops in and took there cities. You then want to keep there cities. That's warmongering. You are using military force to foribly take cities. Warmongering. Doesn't matter if you declare war or not.

That's not warmongering, that's WAR. I'm pretty sure 90% of every war in history involved occupation of enemy cities. Likewise, most wars involve a redistribution of land. That's how war works.

Also google the definition of warmonger. "Encouragement or advocacy of aggression toward other countries or groups". I neither encouraged nor advocated this aggression: it was forced upon me.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Originally posted by Helen Keller Light Festival:

A "warmonger" who never declares war, nor has ever declared it in the past, is, in fact, a very difficult concept to grasp. One might even say it's an outright paradox. That one would be me.

Would be me also. Make no sense whatsoever.

Not the first time this is brought up.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally posted by Helen Keller Light Festival:

Originally posted by Panic Fire:

Why are you taking there cities to begin with? You sent troops in and took there cities. You then want to keep there cities. That's warmongering. You are using military force to foribly take cities. Warmongering. Doesn't matter if you declare war or not.

That's not warmongering, that's WAR. I'm pretty sure 90% of every war in history involved occupation of enemy cities. Likewise, most wars involve a redistribution of land. That's how war works.

Also google the definition of warmonger. "Encouragement or advocacy of aggression toward other countries or groups". I neither encouraged nor advocated this aggression: it was forced upon me.

You were never forced to send your troops into their territory, nor were you forced to capture their cities.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Originally posted by WingedKagouti:

You were never forced to send your troops into their territory, nor were you forced to capture their cities.

Yes, you could just have fell over and let them do whatever they wanted instead of actually defending yourself as the defender in an aggressive war.

Because reasons.

And then have to repeat the same process 15 turns later because the AI would do such a thing all the time.

Because reasons.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

Originally posted by WingedKagouti:

You were never forced to send your troops into their territory, nor were you forced to capture their cities.

Yes, you could just have fell over and let them do whatever they wanted instead of actually defending yourself as the defender in an aggressive war.

Kill their units in neutral and your own territory. Once they run out of units and/or their cities War Weariness gets too high they'll ask for peace.

If you don't want them declaring war in the first place a) make sure you have a military of a size the AI will respect (this is true for almost all Civ games), b) don't run up a massive tally of grievances and c) don't go against their agendas including their bonus agendas.