Playing for the first time as Napoleon (and I've had the game since it was released) on big and small/monarch/normal speed. The mainland is big but my neighbors are toku, monty, alex, and poor roosevelt. I've met Sury (just off the mainland) and there is one more AI out there yet to be determined. We've got five religions on the continent all with different founders. Everyone hates everyone else, everyone has had cities taken from them. Everyone has been dogpiled on at one point or another. It's 1100 and I've just got civil service and I'm the tech leader on the continent. I've never built or seen this many units before. Every time someone declares war, the neighbor on the other side declares on them to hit 'em in the backside. The continent is far from settled, there have been all sorts of big battles in neutral turf, and my economy is more or less based on pillgaing. So many cities have swapped hands multiple times, the continent is a checkerboard of culture. Sury has built every wonder thus far, aside from a shrine or two, and he is the leader in score and tech. If I can't get control of the continent soon, it will be a difficult win. I've never had a more chaotic game and can't remember the last time the game was this fun! Apologies I don't have any screenshots plus I play at home and post at work. Anyone else have a game in recent memory of such insanity?

The most insane things I can remember revolves around one player being close to winning, and a world war breaks out where no one can run away from. It involves a huge battle for sea control and enourmous amounts of land units, but I guess those wars are nothing uncommon near the endgame.

Anyone else have a game in recent memory of such insanity?
Yes, it was the PYL Backstabber game. What a riot, I dont think it ever went more than 5 turns where SOMEONE wasnt at war with someone else.

the most fun i ever had was winning an immortal space race from behind the turn before monty's insanely large army took my final city.

the most fun i ever had was winning an immortal space race from behind the turn before monty's insanely large army took my final city.
I am a little puzzled how on earth you managed to launch a space ship while an army managed to capture one city after the other, but still... Well done, that must have been a brilliant game. :goodjob:

I am a little puzzled how on earth you managed to launch a space ship while an army managed to capture one city after the other, but still... Well done, that must have been a brilliant game. :goodjob:

I think it's called diplomacy. But on a side note I never play with space race, cultural, diplomatic victory, etc on. Conquest all the way.

I am a little puzzled how on earth you managed to launch a space ship while an army managed to capture one city after the other, but still... Well done, that must have been a brilliant game. :goodjob:
As long as that last city was the city that actually launched the ship, he was fine. I have actually just ignored the AIs attacking some of my cities, didnt lift a finger, just let that space ship fly, baby (those cities were on another continent and not building parts, so I ignored the war, basically, other than my destroyers patrolling my main core area for landings, and my stack at the only non-coastal access to my main empire)

Pretty much any game where I gun for the AP, found christianity early enough to compete with buddhism/judaism/hindu and another AI adopts it against my desire. There's then 4-5 different religions in the world. I'm a warmonger and this makes for some wild, tech poor, world-ruined type games.

When I have rifles and poor Sury only has longbows. Oh, what now? Where did your little castles go? (whips/drafts more rifles). Thank you for all your wonders.

When I have rifles and poor Sury only has longbows. Oh, what now? Where did your little castles go? (whips/drafts more rifles). Thank you for all your wonders.

That walls and castles can't stop pre world-war rifles remains a tremendous mystery to me. It's not like walls and castles are overpowered or that letting them effect early gunpowder units would be a balance issue.

It just really bothers me. It's inaccurate, it makes protective unnecessarily weak by obsoleting cheap buildings earlier than they should be, and on top of all that it makes no sense. PRE 1900's RIFLES CAN'T FIRE THROUGH STONE FIREAXIS.

Many players (good and bad) regard protective as a weaker bonus trait than either most or all others. This broken mechanic would be a good way to help it somewhat. The fort at St. Augustine repelled early cannon-fire. You're telling me this type of structure would be UTTERLY USELESS against a crappy limited-ranged gun? How?

PRE 1900's RIFLES CAN'T FIRE THROUGH STONE FIREAXIS.

No, but to argue I'd say imagine a squad of riflemen attacking a castle of archers/longbowmen. Who do you think would win? Of course dependent on a lot of things, but the riflemen can shoot those archers down from their "sniping positions".

And at closer range, do you think it would be a bad idea to have a rifle vs a guy with an axe or a guy with a bow?

However, if the defenders were riflemen themselves, that is a totally different story. Maybe I'll agree to that castles could have been useful until the presence of the cannon. Yeah, actually I don't see the problem with that tweak. It would also boost protective trait, which seems not to be the best trait nowadays.

No, but to argue I'd say imagine a squad of riflemen attacking a castle of archers/longbowmen. Who do you think would win? Of course dependent on a lot of things, but the riflemen can shoot those archers down from their "sniping positions".

And at closer range, do you think it would be a bad idea to have a rifle vs a guy with an axe or a guy with a bow?

However, if the defenders were riflemen themselves, that is a totally different story. Maybe I'll agree to that castles could have been useful until the presence of the cannon. Yeah, actually I don't see the problem with that tweak. It would also boost protective trait, which seems not to be the best trait nowadays.

Rifles weren't particularly accurate at range. Longbows actually out-ranged muskets! The reason muskets got favored is that training longbows took a long, long time. Training a guy to fire a musket took less than a tenth of the time of training a longbow to fire with consistency over long ranges.

I'm not saying that the archers in the castle would win, but even here, we're looking for a "defensive advantage" for defensive bonus. I ask this question in response: Would the archers fare better firing from high ground with cover, or in an open field battle against rifles? I'm pretty sure you can see where I'm going with this. The current mechanic implies the two scenarios to be EQUAL.

Even cannons *ignoring* stone fortifications is fairly suspect. Cannons certainly could destroy such fortifications but not quickly or easily (artillery would eviscerate it, but with early cannon balls breaking through a wall or castle completely would take quite some time). Yes, the renaissance stuff would fare better vs walls/castles than medieval stuff, but that's already represented in their strength. Real life didn't see much "gun vs castle" because of where wars happened and the rate of technology spread. However, I'm pretty sure these defensive fortifications are worth more than NOTHING against early muskets and rifles, which is what the game needlessly implies with its mechanics.

I edited my post, but I don't think you saw it (I didn't see that you had posted either) so I'll post it here instead:

Why the game obsoletes castles and walls at gunpowder is probably partly because of simplicity. Otherwise they would have had to specify which units/technologies are the first to obsolete it. For example Cannon/Steel + Grenadiers/Military Science + Infantry/Assembly Line. Not that simple is it? But I agree it would be a good tweak nonetheless. I doubt Firaxis will change it, but if someone made an unofficial patch that did this I would definitely play it and also actually consider protective leaders for once.

To your latest post: Yeah, you definitely have a very good point, but even this would boost castles and walls considerably compared to today's version.

To the question whether a castle or no castle would be worth an equal amount of defensive advantage, that's only a scenario if the city under attack doesn't have any cultural defense. But still, that's a point too. Taking a city, then defending it from the castle :)

In fact, if we're going to be _realistic_, I'd say castles and walls aren't close to obsolete until the appearance of the tank. Old fortresses and such can still be used today to some advantage in some cases, but they're not nearly as advantageous as they were at their time.

Sorry for hijacking your thread, johnny_rico, but we just got into a quite interesting discussion here. :)

Bows>guns in a forest until the invention of the full metal jacket and cartridges.


Sounds like a good map for a genocide. Burn every city, leave none alive.

Bows>guns in a forest until the invention of the full metal jacket and cartridges.


Sounds like a good map for a genocide. Burn every city, leave none alive.

Not even remotely true. As both an avid bow hunter and former U.S. Marine I can tell you for a fact Bows are considerably less effective in a forest. Especially longbows.

A. Bows require a lot more room to operate.

B. arrows are more prone to be sent of their flight path by little twigs and such. Not only because of the slower velocity but mainly due to the fletching. It only taskes the slightest nudge and zoom, your arrow goes off in a crazy direction.

C. Cartridges have zero effect with regard to forests. None nada. Zip. Bolt and lever action rifles also have great economy of movement so reloading is rarely hindered by forests. And a forest thick enough to interfere with operating a lever action or a rifle bolt would make it nearly impossible to draw a bow. And forests benefit the musket more by providing a nice safe tree to hide behind while reloading. Thus partially negating the bows advatnage over the musket due to a higher rate of fire.

D. the full metal jacket is designed to penetrate body armor. It does not increase effectiveness with regard to passing through branchs. That is a result of muzzle velocity. Which is affected by metal jacketing to such a minute extent that it is not a factor.

E. Try moving swiftly through a forested area with a strung bow.

F. Warfare in forests is more about reflexs. You have smaller windows of opportunity. It takes longer to draw and loose an arrow than it does to point and shoot.