Is it better to just stay at war rather than take multiple ceding penalties in peace?
I've got Korea down to its last city in the waning days of the Medieval Era, it's pretty isolated and unlikely to cause problems for me in the foreseeable future. But I was sending my troops over to it anyway when they sued for peace. This time they were offering all the gold in their treasury and all their gold per turn, were willing to part with their one luxury, and even tossed in some Diplomatic Favor on top. Of course, since this is a game with all expansions, they also ceded all of their captured cities to me.
Naturally, the very next turn, two other civs denounce me because of all the additional grievances generated against me due to the ceding of those Korean cities. One of those civs is on another continent, but the other isn't.
My question is: Is it worth taking the peace deal with Korea for the payout, or is it actually better to just refuse the peace deal, even if I have no intention of taking Korea's last city right now, just to avoid the warmongering penalties with other civs?
I can always take the last Korean city later if I want, whether I continue the war or take the peace deal. So I guess what it comes down to is how worried I am about the Vikings and the Mapuche (the one on my continent) denouncing me, and if those denunciations/warmongering penalties are worth the payout from Korea.
It feels really weird that the game is having me consider a forever war in order to avoid warmongering penalties, but maybe that's a valid strat? Any thoughts on this? Thanks!