Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I don't blame you for pressing the advantage, and it was natural for you to think that capturing a city and then offering to return it would have been enough incentive to broker a peace. So don't take this as a criticism of you or your decisions.
Rather, my point is that politics is a tricky game, and you got sucked into a trap (so to speak). If you had destroyed America's army and then realized that they no longer posed a threat to you, you might have chosen to simply let the war play out. From time to time more American troops would shown up to attack you, but since you defeated their full force before you would have no trouble dealing with the dregs trickling in. Eventually America would have come to you to beg for peace.
Note that the grievance system isn't intended to prevent the situation you experienced. Indeed, it may have contributed to it; for example, by capturing America's city you may have wiped out the grievances you had against America for its surprise war declaration, which then may have contributed to the other nations seeing America as the injured party in the conflict.
When you need to punish an aggressor to press them to make peace, a diplomatically safer strategy is to pillage their tiles and districts. You will profit and they will suffer reduced ability to retaliate, without giving anyone grievances against you.
Friends and allies can't declare war on each other, even in an emergency. That's what you could have done. Before you conquer, secure your relationships. Declare a friendship with any Civ that is friendly and try to get neutral and unfriendly Civs to a friendly state. The better is your diplomatic situation, the easier it's to avoid consequences while conquering, including emergencies. Conquering before the end of the classical era is also a good way to avoid it, since the congress won't be active yet.
As for America refusing peace, just let them be, they will come around. The AI usually reject peace if they think they are winning or if they see some kind of opportunity, like a city that look conquerable for them, or enemy units that look vulnerable. If they think they can hurt you, they probably won't accept peace or they will ask an arm and a leg to accept it. Take a defensive position, stop attacking, fix your walls, build some units to increase your military strength, eventually they will accept defeat. Again, it has nothing to do with grievances, it's just a matter of opportunity and strength. Sometimes the AI have a hard time noticing that they are defeated.
Grievances will give two relationship penalties if a Civ has more grievances against you than you against them. One penalty will be with the Civ that has grievances against you, another with with other Civs, for having grievances with someone else. You got 150 grievances against America when they declared a surprise war. If you captured only one city, you didn't come even close of giving them more than 150 grievances. You can still conquer 2 other cities and nobody will care as far as relationship goes. Emergencies are a separate matter.
I gained 150 grievances against America with the surprise war declaration and even after capturing the city I had 93 grievances. My understanding of how the grievance system is that any aggression is justified up until there is a net of 0 grievances....or at least that's how it should reasonably work in my mind. So unless I completely misunderstand the system I was well within my right theoretically. The only way I could have understood something like this happening is if I captured enough cities that America had more grievances against me than I against him. In which case I would totally understand the world congress getting involved.
You didn't misunderstand, that's how grievances works. Be aware that you get more grievances when you ask them to cede their cities, so don't "spend" all the grievances you got against your enemy, save some. Returning the city removes the grievances you got for conquering it.
I'm not sure if it still work that way, I didn't pay much attention to military emergencies since GS came out, but in R&F you need to be leading in a victory for a military emergency to trigger against you. This kind of emergency is meant to be a catch-up mechanic, giving an opportunity for Civs that are behind to take on you. They get some combat bonuses and a chance to react. It's meant to target players that are snowballing, give them a bit of a fight.
You get suprise wars declared on you several times and then start to fight back? OH HELL YE, YOU BET YOU ARE THE FREAKING WARMONGER.
You just eradicated an army three times the size of your own? Pffft, thats not worth a peace.
You just fought a war against two or more civs simultaniously and came out victorious? "I am glad your nation does not pose a threat to us."
No barbarians in the game? "How dare you let these barbarians run accross your lands?"
Literally five rounds into the game: "WhY YoU nO hAvE nAvY?!"
Breathe :)
So what you expect some rudimental AI to act like a human? lol
If you eliminate another Civ by conquering and KEEPING it's LAST City, you can get additional Grievances added to those grievances in those 3rd party Civs for destroying a Civ. These Grievance WILL LAST a LONG TIME, and make it Diplomacy with those 3rd party Civs a lot more difficult.
However, there is a way out: IF the last City of a Civ is lost in various ways, it is possible to avoid the destroy a Civ penalties and GET RID of ALL 3rd party grievances against your Civ. They go away when the first Civ is Dead, as long as you do not get the killing another Civ penalty.
The basic idea is that you do NOT KEEP the LAST City when you conquer another Civ by
1) If the City was a City State that was conquered, you can Liberate it to be a restored City State and you will be the only one with any envoys in it. It will regain all of it's territory. (Many large Empires will have conquered City States).
2) If the City was conquered from another Civ, you liberate it and return it to the control of it's previous owner and improves your relations with them. This action can be used to bring a dead Civ back to life. (Again many large aggressive Empires will have conquered Cities from other Civs (besides you)).
3) IF the LAST City of a Civ is not a conquered City, then you can wait and hope that it revolts to being an Independent City, because of all the Loyalty pressure against it from other Cities nearby, i.e. the other Cities that you just got done conquering from that Civ. When (IF) that City revolts to be an INDEPENDENT CITY, then that Civ is DEAD. Later that Independent City will probably revolt a 2nd time and end up under your control (hopefully, another nearby Civ might get it instead of you). This can take a while (10 to 20 turns or more) to happen. You want this City to be a small City surrounded by as many as possible nearby Cities belonging to you, that does NOT have a lot of buildings that improve Loyalty of the City. Religion might be useful here.
4th) Maybe another Civ will conquer and Keep that LAST City of your enemy. Then that other Civ gets the destroy a Civ penalties. I have had a Civ that was allied to me in that War conquer that LAST City. If you have killed off All or Most of enemy military units, then your Ally can do this easily, if they have their own military in the area.
5th) Barbarians (probably only in the early stages of the game) CONQUER that LAST City because you killed all (or most) of the units defending it, and pillaged it's territory to ruin it's economy/ability to build/support new military units.
What the above requires is careful planning about the order in which you conquer ALL of the Cities of an Enemy Civ. You want to leave a well chosen City to be their LAST City.
By doing things this way, you can get RID of ALL of those pesky Grievances that 3rd Party Civs are holding against you for your War and CONQUEST of that enemy that declared a Surprise War (or any other form of War Declarations) against you.
I have conquered and destroyed as many as FOUR Civs in ONE game (in games with 12 Civs) this way, and had good relations with the remaining Civs afterwards. My relations with 3rd party Civs during the War(s) will be lowered because of it and will take some time to recover from the negative effects on my relations with other Civs.
By the way, once a Civ no longer exists, you no longer get the negative morale/loyalty effects in the Cities that you conquered from them, because they want to return to their original Civ.
Trying to keep conquered Cities whose parent Civ still lives can be painful and difficult, particularly if there are several of them and they are large in size.
After all IF you are strong enough to defeat a nearby Enemy Civ that attacks you, the only long term peace you will have is if you can get RID of it, i.e. conquer it. The only question is how to do it without ruining your relations with the remaining Civs in the game.