I keep getting denounced over dumb reasons; it has to stop.

[Plaidygami]

I am really hoping for a hotfix or patch soon, because it's getting ridiculous. I got denounced for having a weak naval army, having a different government, and "unknown reasons".

I get that there are agendas, but some of these reasons are just stupid. The current game mechanic is just not that fun with the way it works.

((Edited because I may have misworded my OP))

[Spyro]

I just denounce them back!

[Sishiya]

Honestly don't see what the fuss is all about. I couldn't care less if the AI denounces me (although being bounced into a diplomacy screen just to tell me that gets old fast), and if they want to declare war, well that's okay too; my units can always use more exp and if the AI really irritates me then I don't mind collecting some new production centers in the process.

Some civs in each game just aren't going to be your friend unless you really want to go out of your way to get on their good side. Personally I don't find it worth the effort; just play the game how you want to play but remember that you do have enemies who will exploit any weakness they think you have.

As for your military, you really don't need much unless you've fallen a good bit behind on tech; one or two melee units (mainly for screening your ranged), two to three ranged units providing fire from the rear and one or two bombard units if you want to go on the offensive. Toss in a couple of medics or apostles with the Chaplain promotion and you will crush almost anything the AI can throw at you.

[RedxPanda]

yah a lot of games i was denouced for a joint war by the civ that requested it when i was not even in any wars till that one.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Plaidygami:

Originally posted by Bouncer:

I don't assume ♥♥♥♥, I know what you did. You got attacked and instead of defending, you took over one of their cities. That's an aggressive warmongering act that gets you some hefty penalties. 'But they started it!' is not an excuse in this game, and not in real life either.

I defended and took a city he founded right next to my capital. It was a defensive move to prevent him from trying to screw me over. It's called strategy. Also, this is a game. It doesn't have to be 100% life-like, especially when it comes to certain game mechanics. As I have said (as well as many others, and even people like TotalBiscuit), the current mechanics need to be fixed.

If you think the game is perfectly fine, and you don't want to see others complaining, please, do us all a favour and go play your game instead of bothering us and telling us that our opinions are wrong.

1. You defended - Nothing wrong with that, however then you proceeded to attack his city, occupied it, and kept it even though it clearly show that if you did, you would be labeled a Warmongerer.Then you call "no fair"? :/

2. Yes it is a game, you lacked the strategy of actually reading the tooltip, in your mind of "He started it!" isn't a valid excuse. If you wanted the city there are casus belli for such a situation but you never even considered just defending, waiting for the peace offer and got it a legitimate way instead of Warmongering (even if: "He started it!") TB has acknowlaged the fact he isn't the best Civ-player they even talked about it in the Co-op Podcast with Quill18 (can't remember the nr, one of the latest), this isn't a sandbox game, it has clear Victory Conditions and rules, and you could have chosen another strategy, the slower but less-non warmongering way.

3. I don't think it's "Perfect", and I don't think that "Bouncer"-person think so either; it needs some TLC, and from what 2k has shown in previous installment Civ will get it, but I sure hope it's not these "fixes" you ask for because then there would be no reason to have the mechanic of CBs (casus belli) in the game at all.

To end: If you post on a forum and don't expect people to discuss your opinion (which in this case is in error; as shown above) then you might need to read up on what a forum is.

Then again you might get Ghandi in a game and then the CBs doesn't matter because well it's Ghandi! :)

Snow

[Quevik]

To the original poster: The reason listed is not the entire cause of the denouncement. It's simply 1 of the many. China denouncing you for building wonder (against thier agenda) does not mean that's the only minus you have with them. If you also have an embassy, trade routes, and fair trades with them, or in thier favor, they will come to like you. Also, once they like you they will offer you better trades. I've had civs give me 20gpt and a luxury in exchange for a luxury I had because we were allies.

For those saying making friends is impossible and/or too difficult. I had 5 allies and 1 friend in my last 16 player game (of the 15 that were still alive).

Getting denounced really doesn't change anything in Civ 6, it's not like civ 5 where it makes everyone else hate you as well. Most of the changes from a denouncement are positive. I denounced France in one game, america (who hated france) liked me more for it.

Making friends in the early game it very difficult, yes, but it is easier mid to late game. And for those who don't realize this, hidden agendas change each game. Sometimes china's hidden agenda might be "kil barbs" and the fact you built wonders will not matter.

[katzenkrimis]

I see what they are trying to do.

It makes sense, but it unfolds terribly in the game.

It's really just bad writing, lack of dialogue, and lack of communication options.

For example, Pedro is unhappy with you for hundreds of years. Fine. Whatever.

Then, one day he says that he's going to tell the world of your transgressions and denounces you. Telling everyone about the evil deeds of India.

Verbally, that makes absolutely no sense. Because that's not what it's about.

Basically, he's been jealous of you for hundreds of years because you have more Great People than he does. He finally becomes enraged about it, tells everyone, and your relationship takes a -12 hit.

If they simply had more talking, and more dialogue options, it would make this scenario appear to make sense.

Otherwise, we're stuck with what we have. A bunch of denouncings, goodbyes, and one-clicks every few hundred years.

[yenkin2001]

I keep getting denouced, for war mongering, which is good except I was not at war and had not been at war for quite awhie.

[jamesviago]

There is a bit of recasting "annoying" as "broken" here.

Example. Neighbor founds a city near my capital. Annoying. But not broken. It's not my territory, by definition, it is unoccupied land (at best, owned by indigenous savages). By the rules of the game that's just a land grab. Like European nations did all other the map for thousands of years.

Imagine, a nation landing troops on a new (for them) continent, building towns within trading distance of the indigenous people, and then being very upset when the local tell them to go home, and attack them if they don't. Said nation then brings in military power and oppresses the locals, in a just war because the locals are just savages.

It's not broken, it's exactly how civilizations spread across the world.

Re all the denouncing. Take a stand. If you try to please everyone, or noone (ignore everyone and do your own thing), you will annoy almost everyone. But if you spend some time in the diplomacy pages and build strong relationships early on, you get a much more balanced reaction from the other civs.

The modifiers seem to be dynamic not static, you don't instantly heal a broken relationship: you get a positive (the red and green scores) and then allow time to heal the relationship. But if you've ignored diplomacy then you've been upsetting everyone for 100+ turns and by the time you notice it's too late to repair.

[Huntress]

I just got denounced in the game because the kongo Civ apparently thinks I'm a Warmonger. Except I've not declared a single war against anybody, and in fact they are the one that declared a Surprise war against me. That war is one that they lost and which I captured a City from them in. So how exactly am I a warmonger when they are the only one stqarting any wars?

Yeah really this whole denouncing system needs work I think.

[jamesviago]

Warmonger includes taking cities. No idea what you're complaining about. They attacked. So they got a penalty (with you, obviously, and with the other AIs who dislike that behavior). You defend; that's fair. Then you crossed the old border and invaded them. So you are a warmonger too, and got a penalty.

That's perfectly accurate and I don't want it changed.

Retribution and vengeance don't change the fact that you invaded them. You may feel justified, but it's quite fair that they don't agree, and neither will other civs that like them, already dislike you, or like peace.

[Tatanka]

Also love to get denounced for warmongering by a civ that attacked me 3-4 times in the past.
Not one of those wars i started. Succesfuly defending in a war is warmongering? Hmmm, after 6 games of civ one would expect they would have come up with a better diplomacy system, its still crap.

And to the guy who said he had several allies, you mustve let yourself get robbed to get "friends", its only way. The moment you go against their agenda you get denounced or war declared, and then the rest denounce you for warmongering even if you just mind your own business.
Agendas are all wrong, to big a hit, to little a boost, and most of agendas are impossible to befriend, what you really think im not gonna grab city states or build wonders or build no army wtf. Heck, you cant even avoid doing quests for city states, most of them get done anyhow and thats a guaranteed declaration of war with greece or germany.

[Nyathalie]

Originally posted by rvan:

I agree. I think adding a bit of introspection to the AI would go a long way. Being dennouced as a warmonger when one has never declared war and in fact has had to defend themselves from the same AI that declared a suprise war, is really stupid.
Some more in depth comparing player interactions to the AI would also help. In a few games I have soundly defeated an AI, make them beg for mercy and PAY for peace, and a few turns later they are crap talking again.
I always start a game looking to build for peaceful type civs, sometimes it works out, most of the time the AI forces me into a mililtary stance for preservation and it pisses me off. I am usally the first with nukes and if an AI has been really nasty, I make them the example by planting a few mushrooms and razing a city or two.
A good AI would take that into account, along with the other AIs, and with a bit of intospection of their past actions, take the lesson and start respecting my civ. As it stands they start crap talking again and seem to want to go to war where they should know they would get their butt whipped. In some cases a second time.

I really do not like playing that way all the time, and would like to explore other ways of building a civ.

100% <3

[Nyathalie]

i think they should remove the agendas imo, or atleast remove so they dont denounce you for agendas, cuz i just wana build an empire based on science and culture, and be friendly with my neighbours, without them hating me cuz i have nicer stuff, that is so stupid, sure be jelous, but dont ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ denounce me, i wana be ur friend and have a nice trade relation

[Oliseo]

They need to get rid of the "different governmet" denoucnement.
Throughout history all kinds of countries have worked together with different governments.
Maybe they're going for a Bush/Blair kind of regime change theme.
Either way, it's just nonsense.

[Dray Prescot]

As long as they do not go to war with you 6 turns later, do not worry about it. I had Arabia flip floping back and forth between denouncing me and praising me for en entire game, but I never had a war with them or anyone else after turn 100 until I won a Space Race on turn 447.