Fix Warmongering penalty

[Aliapoh]

> Playing standard game
>Ceasar decides to be a ♥♥♥♥ and declare war on me on turn 36. We both only have one city
> I conquer his capital
> Everyone hates me for the rest of the game (2000+ years)

Seriously?? Why am I being punished for the entire game because Caesar decided to declare war on me when we both only had one city? Can we change it so either only the person that declares war or people that conquer non-capitals get the warmongering penalty? Or at the very least, make it so the warmongering penalty doesn't last the whole game

[toddbrown]

le maymay arrows...

I imagine the issue is that you completly conquered a soverign nation. For the most part back then, war was ended with treaties (i'm getting my information from a book on roman warfare published by the smithsonian). Rome was somewhat unique in its refusal to consider treaties, an example being when Hannibal was parading around the italian peninsula.

Your refusal to entreat Ceasar when he was clearly beaten showed that you weren't interested in peace. You were motivated by "a need to win". This would make more sense if the diplomacy wasn't so screwed up.

Ultimately you're correct. The warmongering stuff is kinda silly, though I can see where they were coming from.

[toddbrown]

Also, non-sequiter, but why doesn't steam have a spell check? That ♥♥♥♥♥ whack yo.

[Aliapoh]

Originally posted by kratos79824:

le maymay arrows...

I imagine the issue is that you completly conquered a soverign nation. For the most part back then, war was ended with treaties (i'm getting my information from a book on roman warfare published by the smithsonian). Rome was somewhat unique in its refusal to consider treaties, an example being when Hannibal was parading around the italian peninsula.

Your refusal to entreat Ceasar when he was clearly beaten showed that you weren't interested in peace. You were motivated by "a need to win". This would make more sense if the diplomacy wasn't so screwed up.

Ultimately you're correct. The warmongering stuff is kinda silly, though I can see where they were coming from.

I guess that makes sense. You'd think that the other world leaders would understand the need for revenge when my civilizations were living peacefully before being brutally attacked by a rival though :P

[ajhartman65]

You commited genocide you evil bastard! :)

WWII ended close to 70 years ago, people have not forgiven Hitler, and may be quite a long time and lot's of revisionist history before they do...just a thought.

[Aliapoh]

Originally posted by ajhartman65:

You commited genocide you evil bastard! :)

WWII ended close to 70 years ago, people have not forgiven Hitler, and may be quite a long time and lot's of revisionist history before they do...just a thought.

70 years is no where near 2000+ and I'm still retailiting for an attack done on my soverign people.

[ajhartman65]

Ok, better example, Attilla the Hun is still considered a bad person for having conquered his way across the eurasian steppes, across most of europe propper and then helping to finish off the decadent Roman empire. That was what, 1500-1600 years ago? Don't hear many people talking these days about how "wonderful" the Huns were back in the day. Does that make more sense?

[Aliapoh]

Originally posted by ajhartman65:

Ok, better example, Attilla the Hun is still considered a bad person for having conquered his way across the eurasian steppes, across most of europe propper and then helping to finish off the decadent Roman empire. That was what, 1500-1600 years ago? Don't hear many people talking these days about how "wonderful" the Huns were back in the day. Does that make more sense?

Not many people also talk about how dickish they were either

[Bdub]

Warmonger penalty is influenced by the number of cities that person has, his relations with other people, and how badly you beat him up. completely wipeing out a civ gives WAY more penalty than just beating him up in defense and taking only one city. Sign a peace treaty after a point has been made, unless he has a lot of cities and the world hates him.

[heatson]

To remove the warmonger penalty can be very challenging! The only real way to remove it is to liberate cities. Also, the AI will hate you more if it's the other civs last city than if it's just one city out of like ten.

Also, remember WWII? France and the UK actually decalred war on Germany. Germany went on offence and conquered/puppeted France. They even lost many raids on Britain. Who's to blame, Germany! Hope this makes sence.

[.:SeeD Squall:.]

when this happen to my i just said ♥♥♥♥ it THIS GAME IS NOW A DOMINATION GAME,and proced to destroy them all

[SandPounder]

Originally posted by .:SeeD Squall:.:

when this happen to my i just said ♥♥♥♥ it THIS GAME IS NOW A DOMINATION GAME,and proced to destroy them all

^^^
THIS

[Oh_Sinister_One]

An interesting but difficult way around this is to destroy a Civ before you meet any other Civs, that way they will never know about your warring ways! As a rule, always try to leave a conquered Civ with one city (not their capital!) as it is easier in the long run and they tend to be very easy to threaten for resources anyway. Honestly, warring is the HARDEST way to win in Civ 5 by a huge margin IMO.

[Sinister]

I dont believe warring is the hardest way to win in Civ 5 :O im the complete opposite for me warring is the easiest though i dont tend to start the fights honest

[Aliapoh]

Originally posted by Oh_Sinister_One:

An interesting but difficult way around this is to destroy a Civ before you meet any other Civs, that way they will never know about your warring ways! As a rule, always try to leave a conquered Civ with one city (not their capital!) as it is easier in the long run and they tend to be very easy to threaten for resources anyway. Honestly, warring is the HARDEST way to win in Civ 5 by a huge margin IMO.

Originally posted by Freqdoc™:

Warmonger penalty is influenced by the number of cities that person has, his relations with other people, and how badly you beat him up. completely wipeing out a civ gives WAY more penalty than just beating him up in defense and taking only one city. Sign a peace treaty after a point has been made, unless he has a lot of cities and the world hates him.

Did none of you see I specifically said several times that he only had one city? I couldn't leave him anything lol

Originally posted by heatson:

To remove the warmonger penalty can be very challenging! The only real way to remove it is to liberate cities. Also, the AI will hate you more if it's the other civs last city than if it's just one city out of like ten.

Also, remember WWII? France and the UK actually decalred war on Germany. Germany went on offence and conquered/puppeted France. They even lost many raids on Britain. Who's to blame, Germany! Hope this makes sence.

We don't blame just Germany, people today know that it was mainly the Treaty of Versaille. And even the people that do blame Germany entirely, it's not like they have an active dislike towards Germans like Civ V suggests; and that was only 70 years ago!

[WarMonkey]

I thought the new patch was supposed to reduce the Warmonger Penalty. In the Ancient era it's supposed to be 50% less. Maybe the patch didn't fix it. I lot of things still don't work correctly, unfortunately.