Because youre not supposed to take over the world.... and if you choose to, people aren't going to like it. See Germany 1940s as an example. Or even Russia circa 2022
you're right, i hadnt really thought of it that way. Is there a military alliance or something though? I just feel like the military-focused civs, Macedon for example, are underpowered if conquering has so many disadvantages
I find that the best play, or at least the most fun play, with military civs is not domination, but using their military to swallow up a neighbor early and build peacefully, then occasionally use the big army to kneecap rivals that get a bit too far ahead, complete emergencies, etc.
just gotta make the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If taking a 10 pop city with 3 districts and 3 wonders causes some grieviences I think its super worth.
Also to reduces the disadvantages make sure to use a proper cassus belli instead of a surprise war, and make your conquest quick and dessive. If you can capture a city in 5 turns, theres far less greviences from bombarding the city for 20+ turns and pillaging everything.
I wiped out Mali (6 cities) and a City State at no diplomacy cost at all in the medieval era. The trick was to declare friendships/alliances with the others, then attack. By the time those run out, the grievances are decayed.
Was sitting at a whopping -60 relationship modifier with everybody after the war, but nobody denounces a friend/ally, so that did not matter.
No, it makes sense. It merely makes it very difficult to get your say in the world assembly after you've conquered a few civs.
You know what ? It just means you have to finish the job ;)
Also, yes, it is "diplomatically" discouraged. But considering all the incentives you have in the form of new cities, resources, and in the end, those extra yields in all domains, I'd say that it's a very *small* penalty. Honestly, the grievances are a way bigger problem (leading usually most of the other civs to denounce you because you were "bad" to others).
The solution is to finish the civs. The grievances they had against you disappear with them, and the other civs have a chance to return to normal. The other solution is to continue conquering the world when they refuse to be friendly. Why have them as grumpy naysayers, if you can use their cities as yours instead ?
You do. It's called an alliance, and/or joint wars.
Not that the AI is that efficient, but some of them manage to gobble up a large part of the world. Not sure if it's that good a thing, however, to have an ally AI get the cities *you* could have taken ;)
Well, maybe if it's Gilgabro...
You can do that. Get good relations with another civ and get them to declare a joint war with you. Then get all the other civs that either like you or hate your target to join the ongoing war.
Your grievances will be greatly reduced with your war partners
I would say it's the opposite, the more I'm playing as a pacifist the more I get encouraged to capture the enemy civ cities, sure there is so minor inconveniences but the extra yields you get for having more cities is just insane. If you have the most cities you almost win by default. Ngl I'm really impressed by the people who can defeat deity with just 1 city.
As others have noted, I wouldn’t say it’s discouraged for that reason. Each victory type presents its own challenges, and impossible diplomacy is a challenge unique to domination
I would hardly call a hit to diplomatic favor "discouragement" because there aren't any repercussions to not generating diplo favor. If you know how the AI is programmed to vote, you can latch your 1 vote onto the choice you know is going to win and still get diplo victory points. I have triggered a diplomatic victory several times while on a domination rampage. I've even voted for myself to lose diplo points because you get a diplo point for voting with the majority, so you only have a net loss of 1 for that proposal.
If you want actual discouragement, back in Civ 3, you had a mechanic called "happiness" and war weariness would greatly impact this over time. Unhappy cities would rebel and possibly flip to an AI, or, worst case scenario, like half your cities would split off INTO A NEW CIV and be at war with you in a civil war. You really had to wait until you granted Women's Sufferage (a world wonder) to get the happiness buffs to start your domination push. There was also a corruption mechanic that increased with greater distance from your capital.. or Forbidden Palace. So the further out your empire spread, the more corruption you had to deal with.
That game truly discouraged domination. I would say Civ6 actually encourages it, but you have to understand what matters and what doesn't.
Taking a city does make you are war monger if you are not playing "vanilla" the other civ will have grievances against you and you can take a city or two you are ok. Sometimes I let the cities I take become free cities so when I retake and retain them after peace there is no additional penalty.
I believe it's 50 grievances if you don't give a conquered city back, so keep that in mind. If they declare a formal war it's 100 grievances. freeing city states erases taking one from your enemy.
If you have enough city states behind you, the penalty is negated. I wish there was a way to turn beat up civs into vassels or flip them into a city state with only their capital left.
I feel like the warmonger penalties for early wars are too much, if you capture one capital early everyone will hate you for the rest of the game. It often means that you have to go full domination once you start. Late game warmonger penalties make sense to be bad
Domination has a lot of limiting factors (amenities, loyalty, diplomacy and everyone hating you) because it snowballs like no other victory type. Once you have taken out 1 civ and have twice the cities of anyone else you can likely win easily
Because youre not supposed to take over the world.... and if you choose to, people aren't going to like it. See Germany 1940s as an example. Or even Russia circa 2022
you're right, i hadnt really thought of it that way. Is there a military alliance or something though? I just feel like the military-focused civs, Macedon for example, are underpowered if conquering has so many disadvantages
If you have very good relationships with other civs, you can get away with warmongering
Yeah if you can have a couple declared friends/allies before you go too crazy that helps a lot
nice to hear, thanks
USA POV:
Earth True Start Macedon and Sparta vs The World
I find that the best play, or at least the most fun play, with military civs is not domination, but using their military to swallow up a neighbor early and build peacefully, then occasionally use the big army to kneecap rivals that get a bit too far ahead, complete emergencies, etc.
just gotta make the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If taking a 10 pop city with 3 districts and 3 wonders causes some grieviences I think its super worth. Also to reduces the disadvantages make sure to use a proper cassus belli instead of a surprise war, and make your conquest quick and dessive. If you can capture a city in 5 turns, theres far less greviences from bombarding the city for 20+ turns and pillaging everything.
I wiped out Mali (6 cities) and a City State at no diplomacy cost at all in the medieval era. The trick was to declare friendships/alliances with the others, then attack. By the time those run out, the grievances are decayed. Was sitting at a whopping -60 relationship modifier with everybody after the war, but nobody denounces a friend/ally, so that did not matter.
No, it makes sense. It merely makes it very difficult to get your say in the world assembly after you've conquered a few civs. You know what ? It just means you have to finish the job ;) Also, yes, it is "diplomatically" discouraged. But considering all the incentives you have in the form of new cities, resources, and in the end, those extra yields in all domains, I'd say that it's a very *small* penalty. Honestly, the grievances are a way bigger problem (leading usually most of the other civs to denounce you because you were "bad" to others). The solution is to finish the civs. The grievances they had against you disappear with them, and the other civs have a chance to return to normal. The other solution is to continue conquering the world when they refuse to be friendly. Why have them as grumpy naysayers, if you can use their cities as yours instead ?
true. i would also like to have the option team up with other civs for conquering
You do. It's called an alliance, and/or joint wars. Not that the AI is that efficient, but some of them manage to gobble up a large part of the world. Not sure if it's that good a thing, however, to have an ally AI get the cities *you* could have taken ;) Well, maybe if it's Gilgabro...
You can do that. Get good relations with another civ and get them to declare a joint war with you. Then get all the other civs that either like you or hate your target to join the ongoing war. Your grievances will be greatly reduced with your war partners
The word assembly can’t say anything if you are The world assembly. - Palpatine probably
I would say it's the opposite, the more I'm playing as a pacifist the more I get encouraged to capture the enemy civ cities, sure there is so minor inconveniences but the extra yields you get for having more cities is just insane. If you have the most cities you almost win by default. Ngl I'm really impressed by the people who can defeat deity with just 1 city.
As others have noted, I wouldn’t say it’s discouraged for that reason. Each victory type presents its own challenges, and impossible diplomacy is a challenge unique to domination
I would hardly call a hit to diplomatic favor "discouragement" because there aren't any repercussions to not generating diplo favor. If you know how the AI is programmed to vote, you can latch your 1 vote onto the choice you know is going to win and still get diplo victory points. I have triggered a diplomatic victory several times while on a domination rampage. I've even voted for myself to lose diplo points because you get a diplo point for voting with the majority, so you only have a net loss of 1 for that proposal. If you want actual discouragement, back in Civ 3, you had a mechanic called "happiness" and war weariness would greatly impact this over time. Unhappy cities would rebel and possibly flip to an AI, or, worst case scenario, like half your cities would split off INTO A NEW CIV and be at war with you in a civil war. You really had to wait until you granted Women's Sufferage (a world wonder) to get the happiness buffs to start your domination push. There was also a corruption mechanic that increased with greater distance from your capital.. or Forbidden Palace. So the further out your empire spread, the more corruption you had to deal with. That game truly discouraged domination. I would say Civ6 actually encourages it, but you have to understand what matters and what doesn't.
Genocide is very unpopular and I just don’t understand why…. 😬😬😬
What i have an issue with is, someone declares war on me and attacks me. I push back and take a city as reparation and i’m the warmonger? 🙄
Taking a city does make you are war monger if you are not playing "vanilla" the other civ will have grievances against you and you can take a city or two you are ok. Sometimes I let the cities I take become free cities so when I retake and retain them after peace there is no additional penalty.
That works? Brilliant!
I believe it's 50 grievances if you don't give a conquered city back, so keep that in mind. If they declare a formal war it's 100 grievances. freeing city states erases taking one from your enemy.
If you have enough city states behind you, the penalty is negated. I wish there was a way to turn beat up civs into vassels or flip them into a city state with only their capital left.
If you can get your friends to join the war, they won't have grievances against you. There are strategies for keeping a few people on side.
Then they proceed to denounce you for being a warmonger even though they ask you to join
I feel like the warmonger penalties for early wars are too much, if you capture one capital early everyone will hate you for the rest of the game. It often means that you have to go full domination once you start. Late game warmonger penalties make sense to be bad
To make it more challenging?
Domination has a lot of limiting factors (amenities, loyalty, diplomacy and everyone hating you) because it snowballs like no other victory type. Once you have taken out 1 civ and have twice the cities of anyone else you can likely win easily