I have no patience for war

[Alrin Kharr]

You might want to post some sample saves from your games so people can look at them and try to see what your major problems are. I assure you that it is very possible to successfully support a large army and fight long wars without completely crashing your economy beyond the point of recovery. You say that he didn't successfully support his argument, but you haven't provided much backing for yours either beyond "War is broken because I can't manage my economy and war at the same time."

 

[Kesshi]

I know declaring war takes a hit on the ecomony, but still, warring is broken, especially when I take a hard hit with my ecomony declaring war than the AI does.

If you run at a 0% science, then you have failed.

Still, you haven't sucessfully defended your argument how warring in Civ4 is not broken.

PreLynMax,

It sounds like you spend too much time in the main screen, and not enough time in the Financial Advisor's screen. This was a piece of advice I picked up from a Deity player here long ago, I wish I remembered who it was that I caught this from to give them credit, but I forgot. Regardless, once I started paying a lot more attention to my Financial Advisor's screen, how to manage my money just made more sense to me. While I can't guarantee this will secure a victory for you, it sounds like the weakest part of your game is your understanding of the financial costs of an empire. I am willing to bet that if you worked on this part of your game that you would see a vast improvement all around, especially in your warring capabilites.

I don't think war in CivIV is broken because a poor economy can't wage war as well as a strong economy.

 

[Cashew]

The thing that is broken in warfare and amassing am army is that it will hurt your ecomony. Everytime I have the army to survive, I end up in serious budget problems (even when I'm running a cottage ecomony) and I my tech rate end up sliding... and sliding to the point where I fall far behind and I must give up before the game is usually over.

Obviously when you build 20 extra units your econ is going to slow down a bit. But the idea is that you take something that gives you a definite benefit. If your units are just sitting around then of course they're a waste.

Rushing is always a failure where I never do them because I know the ineviable fate on my ecomony's state. I enmass an army, I start to rush, I lose my whole damn army from my opponent's defenses, I rebuild, I repeat, always ending up as a failure, then I get massave WW.
Apparently, my Quecha rush of 15 Quechas in 30 turns are always failure. Being a builder is the ONLY way to survive until an unwanted DOW, and to defend so, I have to sacrifice my budget and a possible science stagnate in order to protect my cities.

Quecha rushing is noob. It's especially noob that you tried to use 15 of them. You need to build the right units or your attacks will always fail miserably.

In Noble or higher, I have yet to make a sucessful offensive assualt against AI. Yes, in overall, the entire war process is broken.

Lol, seriously? On NOBLE? For god's sake you're on PAR with the AI how hard is it to clear the map with war tactics when you're fighting something that dumb.

Ok... stop.
*Sighs, takes a Codeine, puts my fingers on the bridge of my nose*
But the time that happens, I'm already far behind tech, and at that time "recovery" is futile.

Of course it is if as in your stated experience you fail to take anything. Once you take enemy land and put its cottages to work for yourself you can easily surpass other civs tech rate.

Still, you haven't sucessfully defended your argument how warring in Civ4 is not broken.

Rather than assuming warring is worthless in Civ why not ask how other people do it successfully?

 

[TwoShedsJackson]

If you haven't already done so, install the BUG (BtS Unaltered Gameplay) mod. It doesn't alter any of the rules of the game or create any new units, but it does give you all sorts of helpful notices while you're playing. Two of those notices appear on the civ list that lives in the lower-right corner.

One notice is a power number, which is simply a numerical comparison of your (military) power rating versus each of your opponents. When you see those numbers dropping below 1, watch out! Military weakness invites sneak attacks, especially from certain AI leaders. (Genghis, I'm looking at you!) When your military is lagging behind your neighbors, start recruiting some troops ASAP in order to avoid war.

The other notice is a red fist that tells you when an AI leader has gone into WHEOOHRN (We Have Enough On Our Hands Right Now) mode. When you see that red fist, it means someone is about to go to war. You might be the target, or you might not be. But someone is going to feel the pain. Check your power rating (see the first notice) and check your diplomacy situation!

If you don't like mods, you can get all of this information from the vanilla game. Just check the power graph on a regular basis. Talk to all of the AI leaders to see if they're in WHEOOHRN mode. It's a pain in the fundament, but it'll keep you out of war.

Or just install the BUG mod. Now that I'm used to it, I wouldn't play Civ without it.

+1 to this, the BUG mod is a huge improvement over the original game interface.

 

[CornPlanter]

If you run at a 0% science, then you have failed.

Actually, you have not. Beaker output is just one aspect of the game. Important one, yes. But not game deciding. As opposed to "if you run 0 cities, then you have failed". There are lots of ways to come back from 0 science or even to win the game staying at 0 percent science. Specialists, Great People, trading, esspionage... you can take techs for peace or sometimes friendly AI just gifts you techs (OK you can't rely on this one but still...). The key is, you don't need every single tech to win; and you don't even need to lead in research to win. And if you find yourself in situation where you run science at 0, you work every commerce tile available, run every commerce specialist available and still running into deficit and your units start disappearing because of lack of funds... the game might still be winnable. Not just winnable - ownable.

I believe you just need some practice and some forum-reading and you will do well Just don't give up too early.

And yes if you could post some saves, it'd be nice. Especially if you have situations you consider dead.

 

[Skallagrimson]

If I'm running at 0% science, my REX has succeeded!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

and you don't even need to lead in research to win.

No kidding, I've posted a few space wins here in recent months where I lacked a tech lead ...and plenty of military wins (which is far less unusual).

 

[Skallagrimson]

In Vanilla the AIs are horribly bad at space racing, and even the latest BtS patch they're still "pretty bad". They start their engines way too late, especially.

 

[PreLynMax]

at 1100 A.D., and I'm at 0% tech with 11 cities, it's clear that I'd give up by then.
But... at 6 cities and 50% tech (60%) if I set my capitol on "Wealth", I keep my dignity, and hopefully, will keep up in tech throughout the game.
I know what you strategy is. "If I REX now, and gather enough land now, I will have enough room to run my cottage city". Unfortunately, the theory is with 0%, you will slide farther and farther behind in tech, until you will be irrelevant in every category in the mid-late game (provided that you last that long).

If I'm running at 0% science, my REX has succeeded!

If I'm running at 0% science, it's time to start a new game; your future is bleak.

Yes, I'm still taking about Noble difficulty.

 

[CornPlanter]

Unfortunately, the theory is with 0%, you will slide farther and farther behind in tech until you will be irrelevant in every category in the mid-late game (provided that you last that long)

Fortunately, it's a wrong theory

I believe I quite understand you 'cause I used to think exactly the same few years ago. But it's narrow and wrong mindset. And it has been proven a whole damn lots of times by numerous walkthroughs and other sorts of online games.

That said, there is nothing wrong with restarting a game once you see that you cannot win using one particular narrow sort of strategy - if you don't like other ways. CIV is a great game because you can play it any way you like.

P.S. can we have that 1100 A.D. save... please..? Public demands a save!

 

[Kesshi]

If I'm running at 0% science, it's time to start a new game; your future is bleak.

Yes, I'm still taking about Noble difficulty.

PreLynMax,

I disagree. So long as you can tech Pottery during your first REX, if you can still run positive at 0% Science I feel that you haven't expanded enough.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If I'm running at 0% science, it's time to start a new game; your future is bleak.

Yes, I'm still taking about Noble difficulty.

Or not!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=312036

Granted, since the AI didn't get its starting techs, it was a little easier than a normal emperor game. I went on STRIKE in that game for a turn, -4 gpt at 0% science. Shift a couple tiles around, run some scientists, build research, and check out the variance just a handful of turns later in the next screen shot. I actually had one game on here a while back @ -40 some GPT at 0% science, a mass horse archer charge on a large map. THAT was admittedly a little hard to pull out of, but it wound up being one of my higher scoring games.

I'm far from the best player on here too, especially when it comes to tile micro (too lazy, and not talented enough to see into the future like that via that many calculations in my head). If I can drag out of strike to blow out an emperor game, I'd venture to guess it's more than doable on noble and far from time to quit. Rather than take that mindset, you should probably be looking at tech choices and commerce/gold outputs. On noble you wouldn't be striking even with 10 cities near 1 AD.

 

[PreLynMax]

PreLynMax,

I disagree. So long as you can tech Pottery during your first REX, if you can still run positive at 0% Science I feel that you haven't expanded enough.

It's not that I can run positive at 0%. I can run positive at 0%... but will I tech enough to keep up in tech with the AI, and wont have my army disbanded and run at the threat of getting DOWed on unprepared?

My logic dictates survival after 1400A.D. running at 0% science is... 0%.

Still at Noble difficulty.

P.S. can we have that 1100 A.D. save... please..? Public demands a save!

I'm working on it. I'm probably going to do Wang Kon on Noble, Huge Map, Hemispheres (2 contients), Normal speed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

My logic dictates survival after 1400A.D. running at 0% science is... 0%.

Try to understand commerce tiles growing (cottages), putting in courthouses, building wealth/research, and running specialists. Everyone is telling you that reality is different from your current perception. I even gave you some very current proof. Unless you're running off specialist beakers entirely you don't want to hang at 0% for long, but 0% is NOT a big deal at all if it's temporary, and if you get and use your land properly it hikes up pretty fast.

 

[PreLynMax]

TMIT, most likely (unless you are a warmonger, which I am not), when your beakers start to slide, its an indicator that you are failing to fund your scientists to work. Lack of funding will have severe and dire consequences.

Granted, a temperary dip to 0% supposely isn't a particular need for crisis, but what if you fall so far behind in tech, that even a large spike dosen't help you?

Without warmonging (which I avoid like the plague, because I never won an offensive assault) how far can you go with 0% science?

Which brings me back to the topic at hand, War. I said earlier that war in Civ 4 is broken, in fact the whole aspect of the AI's thought process is broken.
How can it that the AI can keep be at war with you (in particular), with 10+ cities, and keep up in techs all at the same time, when when you either DOW, or build, you will always never have enough to do both?

Now let's go on specifics. Fighting a war will put you in the hole either finically or ecomomically. Even when you do enmass a force, you will always be thwarted be enemy forces because they have an advantage against you; they can actually build much more faster and outnumber you; you will never, ever manage to take them out. The only real advantage you have against your enemy's forces is World Builder... and that is cheating, and I refuse to do that.

Commerce tiles will not be enough to dig you out, though... if you are at war, you are finicially screwed. Because of the AI's advantage to build and outnumber your forces, you will fall behind in your sliders and fall so far behind in your tech (below 50%), that you won't be able to catch up in the future when you eventually make peace.

And speaking being outnumbered, how about those damned barbarians? I had to give up playing my 4th game in the row because of them. They manage to pick the weakest city, and with a single axemen they can take a city full of 4... that's FOUR fully fortified warriors. Reinforcements were too far away to make any inpact, and I was helpless as the chances of me continuing after the barbarian attack dwindle to 0%. By the way, after that single axeman took the city, I simply gave up.

I have no patience for war. I have no patience of worrying about sacrificing actually winning the game because of one asinine aspect of the game. I have no patience of getting DOWed on... I usually give up by then. I have other things to worry about besides building a military to defend myself with or prevent getting DOWed on, when I'm trying to keep up with tech.

 

[Bostock]

And speaking being outnumbered, how about those damned barbarians? I had to give up playing my 4th game in the row because of them. They manage to pick the weakest city, and with a single axemen they can take a city full of 4... that's FOUR fully fortified warriors.

Well, definitely. You have a strength-five unit fighting a strength-two unit that it gets a natural 50 percent bonus against, in a game where even one-point differences in modified strength can mean very uneven battles when the strength numbers on both sides are still low. Even with the city defense bonus and fortification bonus, you probably were not even scratching it from battle to battle. So what is there to be surprised at? (And why could you not whip at least an archer?)

 

[CornPlanter]

I'm convinced by PreLynMax arguments. If my games are completely different and I manage to wage wars, have an economical advantage (or take it back), run science at 0% for short or long periods and still win - on prince level - then I myself must be doing something wrong. Because if I did everything right I wouldn't be able to win 'cause Civ4 combat is broken as was proven by PreLynMax. On the other hand TMIT manages to do the same on Monarch and Emperor levels which means he must be doing something just terribly wrong. And I don't even start about players who do it on Deity...

The only real advantage you have against your enemy's forces is World Builder... and that is cheating, and I refuse to do that.

So basically you are saying that people who manage to do what you fail are using WB and they are cheaters?

I'm sorry for my tone, ussually I'm not like that. Now to the specific points:

Without warmonging (which I avoid like the plague, because I never won an offensive assault) how far can you go with 0% science?

I believe it was said before, but just in a case I will repeat: with 0% science you can go till Victory. In several different ways. For several differenct peacefull sorts of victories.

Fighting a war will put you in the hole either finically or ecomomically. Even when you do enmass a force, you will always be thwarted be enemy forces because they have an advantage against you; they can actually build much more faster and outnumber you; you will never, ever manage to take them out.

It's just your statement, backed up by no evidence whatsoever. What's even worse, countless games posted on forums show otherwise. But if the facts contradicts with theory, too bad for facts, right? Lets just ignore those damned facts.

Commerce tiles will not be enough to dig you out, though... if you are at war, you are finicially screwed. Because of the AI's advantage to build and outnumber your forces, you will fall behind in your sliders and fall so far behind in your tech (below 50%), that you won't be able to catch up in the future when you eventually make peace.

And again, bold statement with no backing. Facts show otherwise. E.g. when you win a war you take some spoils. In the form of just cities, or maybe Wonders, or maybe resources too, or maybe Shrined holy city. After the war your units are promoted much more. Probably you also have a great general or two. You are in good position to wage war again as soon as you get your new cities online and your eco running again.

And speaking being outnumbered, how about those damned barbarians? I had to give up playing my 4th game in the row because of them. They manage to pick the weakest city, and with a single axemen they can take a city full of 4... that's FOUR fully fortified warriors. Reinforcements were too far away to make any inpact, and I was helpless as the chances of me continuing after the barbarian attack dwindle to 0%. By the way, after that single axeman took the city, I simply gave up.

I personally do not like barbs. But if they are, I try to make most of them. No-brainer ways of abusing barbs are The Great Wall and experience farming. If you defend city with just warriors against Axemen then you are playing terribly. Is it that difficult to understand that you still need to learn basics before talking about how broken the game is?

I have no patience for war.

What you have no patience for is learning from your mistakes, trying different strategies and improving your skill in general. This is what you have no patience for. Yes, Civ4 is a very complicated game and might be difficult to learn all that many aspects and how they interact. But that's no excuse calling it broken.

 

[StrandedonEarth]

As a mere monarch player 15 quechas is too much. 5 should be plenty for a rushable target. More simply sucks up maintenance, especially once they hit enemy lands. 15 takes way too long, allowing the target to build more defense (fortified units and cultural). Once the culture defense hits 40% it gets hard to take a city with quechas.

Once the science slider hits zero, you should have a library to run some scientists, salvaging some research. Some cottages will give you some cash. Lastly, once your units are no longer in enemy territory (when you take the city), your income will rebound. I learned the hard way the worst thing you can do is camp a stack on enemy turf, waiting for more units to arrive, sucking up outrageous maintenance. The more units, the worse the maintenance. The gold earned from capturing a city will let you run a deficit for research as well.

Oddly enough, a quecha rush is actually easier on monarch, because the AI starts with archers (which quechas own) instead of warriors (which they don't). Sometimes an exploring quecha will find an enemy capital and win the RNG battle, quickly getting a second capital. My last game actually backfired where the enemy cap was stilll at 1 pop, so while I destroyed Ghandi, I also razed the city with my starting quecha.

By the time barbarian axemen show up, you should at least have archery researched and can whip out an archer, or have axemen of your own.

All that said, the question still remains: Where's the save file? Any save file can show where there may be deficiencies that handicap your games. Not enough workers (1-1.5 per city is a common rule of thumb) not building enough improvements to power your economy is the most common pitfall.

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

I'm a noble level player too like you. It really is not as bad as you think. One thing I am noticing is you are always talking about 0%. Really where the slider is % wise pretty much means nothing. I have had games where early on I am at like 60% or so totaling a bpt of around 20-25 then after getting more cities through rexing or war and developing land my slider is down to 30% BUT my beaker per turn is up over 150 or so. So THAT is what matters -- your beaker output not where the slider is.

And yeah if you war early or rex out lots early on your tech rate can drop a bit and you can fall behind. BUT being behind is NOT the end of the world. I end up dropping behind in LOTS of games and it is still possible to make a come back. Sometimes it hard and yeah for me it doesnt always happen. But now most games I can USUALLY start making comeback by Indy era. If its going well it will usually go one of two ways. The AI's all LOVE going down sci meth, communision, physis, elec route. At that point I let em cuz I am going down RR, comvustion, aseembly line route. So yeah they beat me to airships and broadway and kremlin etc--but I beat em to infantry and after that they just building those late game wonders for me . Or sometimes if it going really well I tech through to Aseembly line but my economy going so good that I can tech through the phsysi--elec line twice as fast or faster than the AI did and even though they got headstart on those wonders since I have factories and coal plants up I can STILL build those shinies faster.

And that not counting the once in blue moon wher eby that time I beat em to everything by that. True games going THAT well is very rare but it it CAN happen. You dont have to wait THAT long if you dont like modern era stuff. I am just saying falling behind is NOT game over as long as you work and plan out your empire to recover you CAN end up teching out twice as fast as AI or more which can let you catch up BIG time. And all that DOESNT even take into account techwhoring, and light bulbing which are also very handy in coming from behind.

Like the cliche lots of ppl say bout this game. Land IS power. and yeah getting all that alnd can be expensive early but once its all developed the other AI's wont have a chance. One of keys those IS developing it and making sure you take advantage.

That like you example about 11 cities and 0% by 1100 AD. Well like I said the 0% doesnt matter but true 11 cites by ONE AD can mean low beaker output and negative gold income and risk of strike while you develope land to recover. But that same scenario with 11 cites by 1100AD?? Not on noble. if you have 11 cities and it 1100 AD and your economy AND military isnt healthy (I am not saying you have to be most powerful and most advanced but you definitely SHOULDNT be crippled either by that point) then it is problems with not developing lad enough (most likely NOWHERE near enough workers) not utilizing resources not getting the most of the your buildings or building unecessary buidlings things like that. Believe me I am NOT the worlds greatest player but the mechanics in the game ARE there so that having 11 cities by 1100AD for you to be in at least competive position if not a very strong position. But mechanics just being there wont help much if you DONT take advantage of em.

Your scenario with barb is good example. If you have a city with 4 warriors and you lose it to ONE barbie axeman. That NOT a game issue it just bad mechanics. Lets say counting at least one move to get up to your city center and then one turn for each warrior thats FIVE turns. That more than enough time to whip a an archer AND walls, whip and send reinforcements, up grade the warriors SOMETHING. Yeah it will be tuff if you dont have metals or horses BUT that means WORST case scenario is that axe sits on a hill and you have to wait a bit to dig him out. On noble by time axes start showing up and going after your cities either or both AH and BW should have been teched by then and if you didnt have horseys or copper then arhery should have been priority and you should have been able to make it in time to protect your cities. Even something as little as instead of having 4 warriors sitting in that one city--have garrison and the other 3 out fogbusting could have made HUGE diff-at very least it would give you LOTS more advanced notice and lots more turns to get help to the city. So on noble short of an uprising, barbies can be ETREMELY annoying but they shouldnt be MORE than that and you SHOULDNT be losing cities to em IF you prepare for it ahead of time.

Noble is about as even as it gonna get. AI doesnt get xtra bonuses, techs cost same for them as it does for you. About the only advantage they have is hidden diplo bonuses (but they can also get hidden diplo minuses) with each other and cheaper upgrade costs (but it is THAT big a discount since on noble the AI's still cant do HUGE instant mass upgrades) and they CANT go broke or on strike but they CAN over expand and end up getting their tech rate in the tank with too many cities or too many units so getting caught up in a war can be just as costly for them as for you depsite that. In fact even MORE costly cuz humans can be MUCH smarter and efficent in recovering from stuff like that than the AI.

But you right about one thing. It does take a little planning and it DOES take SOME patience and management on your part. You cant just set everything on autopilot and have no plan and hope it works out and then say mechanics are broken when it doesnt.

Kaytie

 

[DarkFyre99]

TMIT, most likely (unless you are a warmonger, which I am not), when your beakers start to slide, its an indicator that you are failing to fund your scientists to work. Lack of funding will have severe and dire consequences.

Granted, a temperary dip to 0% supposely isn't a particular need for crisis, but what if you fall so far behind in tech, that even a large spike dosen't help you?

Without warmonging (which I avoid like the plague, because I never won an offensive assault) how far can you go with 0% science?

It would be really helpful if you'd post a few saves because in my experience (at Noble, and now at Prince) is that not only is dropping to 0% not a game ending problem, but sometimes it's my plan to be permanently be at 0%.

Which brings me back to the topic at hand, War. I said earlier that war in Civ 4 is broken, in fact the whole aspect of the AI's thought process is broken.

How can it that the AI can keep be at war with you (in particular), with 10+ cities, and keep up in techs all at the same time, when when you either DOW, or build, you will always never have enough to do both?

I'm beginning to suspect that the problem is a failure to specialize your cities. In my experience, my heroic epic city can produce enough units to protect my own soil, and often project my power into my neighbors soil, allowing the rest of my empire to maintain a parity of techs with my neighbors, and still snag wonders important to my strategy.

Now let's go on specifics. Fighting a war will put you in the hole either finically or ecomomically. Even when you do enmass a force, you will always be thwarted be enemy forces because they have an advantage against you; they can actually build much more faster and outnumber you; you will never, ever manage to take them out. The only real advantage you have against your enemy's forces is World Builder... and that is cheating, and I refuse to do that.

At noble level, this simply isn't true. They research and build at the same level you do, and they do a very poor job in specializing their cities. Only the fact that they're very good at trading techs between themselves allows them to keep up with the human player.

Commerce tiles will not be enough to dig you out, though... if you are at war, you are finicially screwed. Because of the AI's advantage to build and outnumber your forces, you will fall behind in your sliders and fall so far behind in your tech (below 50%), that you won't be able to catch up in the future when you eventually make peace.

You do have a city dedicated to running scientist specialists, that has national epic in it to churn out Great Scientists, don't you?

Scientists are very powerful researchers, especially is you use the Great Scientists they generate to bulb techs for trade.

And speaking being outnumbered, how about those damned barbarians? I had to give up playing my 4th game in the row because of them. They manage to pick the weakest city, and with a single axemen they can take a city full of 4... that's FOUR fully fortified warriors. Reinforcements were too far away to make any inpact, and I was helpless as the chances of me continuing after the barbarian attack dwindle to 0%. By the way, after that single axeman took the city, I simply gave up.

Fog busters, archers, and chariots are the cure to barbs.

I have no patience for war. I have no patience of worrying about sacrificing actually winning the game because of one asinine aspect of the game. I have no patience of getting DOWed on... I usually give up by then. I have other things to worry about besides building a military to defend myself with or prevent getting DOWed on, when I'm trying to keep up with tech.

Without having any saves to look at, I suspect the problem is that you simply aren't specializing your cities, as well as relying completely on commerce for your research, than getting beakers from scientist specialists as well and Great Person bulbs.

Of course, if you don't want to worry at all about warfare, you can always play a custom game with barbs turned off and "always peace" turned on.