Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Tristan_C]

What determines the outcome of a war (who gets to "sue" for victory)? Is it only determined by soldiers killed and cities taken? Does pillaging cities count as "points" towards a victory? Thanks in advance.

I don't know about the pillaging or how, precisely, the captured cities factor in, so this question will pass along. What I do know is that the AI considers its victories, losses, and the underlying hammers to determine who has the initiative. Using this mechanic, a fast way to get a strong AI willing to talk is with nukes because they count extra and usually represent a very large hammer trade-off— nuke their stack. Before nukes, get the jump on the stack with siege.

 

[CocoIsKing28]

Unless you either completely wipe out the enemy civ or make them capitulate and become a vassal, there is no clear winner and loser of a war in Civilization IV, at least not as far as the game mechanics and scoring are concerned. "Soldiers killed" don't count toward your score at all; captured cities do, but only in terms of raising the portion of your score determined by your population and land ownership, which may in turn contribute toward a Domination victory. Eliminated or vassaled opponents count toward a Conquest victory. Conquered populations and vassals must vote for you in any and all AP or UN elections, which may in turn help you to win a Diplomatic victory.

Wouldn't you consider a payment of gold and a tech gift as a victory? At least that's what I take as one...

 

[Sisiutil]

Wouldn't you consider a payment of gold and a tech gift as a victory? At least that's what I take as one...

Oh, I see what you're after. The factor determining that is probably buried in the code somewhere, and I would wager it varies from one leader to another.

 

[Manco Capac]

War tributes depends of two great factors in normal situations (like not "Agressive AI" option on):
power rate vs theirs and war successes. If at war but no battles happened or worker/settler stolen (or undefended city captured), power rate takes full effect for war tribute. If they are more powerful (in terms of cities, soldiers, some techs, some fake power coming from diverse things like the Great Wall), you pay to make peace. If you are more powerful, they pay. If equal in power, no ones pay, but a bug happens...enforced peace treaty (10 turns peace treaty) is not accepted but a ceasefire...yes.

Now after some battles (or better said some war successes both sides), the one who gets the most is advantaged to get some tribute and it deviates the power rate influence to the winner side. For instance, in a basic situation, you worker steal early in the game. They are more powerful but accept enforced peace treaty. It is because this tiny war success change the balance to favor you.

A note about ceasefire and enforced peace treaty:

ceasefire happens if you are more powerful or/and get more war successes than the opponent or in the least simply as strong as them.

Enforced peace treaty is definitely on if you are stronger or/and get more war successes.
It means the AI cannot accept such free automatic peace without feeling losing the war in a sense. This could be a criterion for your definition of losing war.
And that would explain why the AI refuses peace treaty on equality.

War successes is a balance sheet calculated within the game based on 5 parameters:
10 points for each city captured.
1 points for each settler or worker captured.
4 points for each winning battle on the offense.
3 points for each battle won on the defense.
10 points for each nuke. I think lost units from nuke are ignored, so each nuke brings 10 and no more to avoid abuses.

A comparison is made and the one who gets more points is the winner.
War success is the criterion for capitulation system and capitulation is clearly a sign of losing a war.

Finally, there is a little parameter called ilostwar that brings one negative diplo modifier while at war; it comes if they get more war weariness than you (but possibly without happiness effect knowing AI cheats on this aspect of the game). Another aspect that can be counted as a definition of a losing AI.

@Sisiutil

You may be right about the fact it depends of the leader, but in my past tests on this subject, I tested it solely on one leader.

 

[rogue131]

Why won't a friendly civ map trade with me? I mean we've been through three heavy wars together, our trade relations are beyond fair and I'm even supplying them with weaponry and troops, yet they won't trade maps with me?

 

[Manco Capac]

Why won't a friendly civ map trade with me? I mean we've been through three heavy wars together, our trade relations are beyond fair and I'm even supplying them with weaponry and troops, yet they won't trade maps with me?

My guess the said leaders are Elizabeth or Tokugawa. Those two leaders are defined to never trade maps.
Otherwise, you have a vassal. Vassal to a human master screws diplo for the human. For instance, if friendly leader is CAUTIOUS towards vassal and FRIENDLY towards you, then the real stance towards both of you at once is PLEASED, which is the middle stance. Firaxis devs implemented this hidden mechanisms thinking they would lower the power of vassals, but in fact just screwed diplo for unaware player.

 

[rogue131]

It's actually Elizabeth, sounds like you nailed my problem on the head. Kind of annoying though isn't it? No matter how hard you try to please her, she still won't hook you up. Toku's a given, you can never please him.

 

[Pangaea]

They make a great couple. I see no arguments in their future

:whistle:

 

[Leathaface]

Who are the biggest backstabbers in the game?

In my last 2 games i've had Mao Zedong declare war on me despite us being the same religion and him being pleased. In the other game Mao declaring war on Egypt despite Epypt being the same religion.

 

[Manco Capac]

Roughly say, Catherine of Russia is the biggest backstabber because she accepts a bribe against you even though she's friendly to you. BUT the @sshole who turned her against you must have her friendship too. So, if you backstab an advanced leader, friend of Cathy, you may get pursued by her cossacks!

 

[God-Emperor]

Who are the biggest backstabbers in the game?.

In most games it is the human player(s). The human is the one no other civ should trust. Whatever their diplomatic level appears to be to the other civs, they can and will attack anyone anytime they feel like it including doing so for reasons no AI will even consider. A human player can make Montezuma appear reasonable.

 

[Leathaface]

I'm only talking about single player.

 

[God-Emperor]

It's generally true in single player too. You are probably more likely to backstab an AI who thinks you like them than they are to backstab you.

 

[CocoIsKing28]

Thanks for all of the info!

And on the topic of backstabbers, Catherine and Ragnar. Both will completely turn on you, no matter how good you've been to them. I'd suggest wiping them out first...

 

[Manco Capac]

Ragnar is cool although super agressive. Once PLEASED (HR civic ), he cannot DoW or be in WHEOON against you.

 

[CircleA]

Although I'm late on the question about how wars come in victory but I'd wish to input my experience, i was playing a game as the Japs, and had set up the game with every warmonger or threat I could think of, turned out I spawned near Stalin, awhile into the game, he declared war with me ignorantly not being prepared, but I went from having a major issue to making him submit after I pillaged all of his improvements near Moscow, went from him demanding Osaka to me getting a tech out of him and I think gold. Rough game...

 

[CocoIsKing28]

And pillaging cities seems to turn the tide in a war, as well.

Ragnar is cool although super agressive. Once PLEASED (HR civic ), he cannot DoW or be in WHEOON against you.

I was once attacked by Rags after I spent the whole game shifting between Pleased and Friendly.

 

[Manco Capac]

^
Mistake from me. I just remembered Ragnar has 90% chance to remain in peace each turn on PLEASED. You were right, he is a backstabber.

 

[Leathaface]

What is the story with the culture symbol and the number next to it, ie "Library, 2 *culture symbol*

Is the the extra amount of culture per turn?

Sorry, I don't know an awful lot about culture in this game, ie, how much is needed to get a tile back from the next door civ.

 

[MrKlew]

What is the story with the culture symbol and the number next to it, ie "Library, 2 *culture symbol*

Is the the extra amount of culture per turn?

Sorry, I don't know an awful lot about culture in this game, ie, how much is needed to get a tile back from the next door civ.

Yes the 2 means it gets 2 culture points per turn. The short answer to how much you need to win back a tile is one more than your opponent has. The long answer is that culture is placed on each square within a city's cultural boundaries every turn. I believe the amount of culture your city is producing is placed on the furthest tile away and it increases by some amount for each ring you move in. The total amount of culture placed on a tile by all civlizations over the whole game is used to calculate the total culture on the tile. Whoever has the greatest percentage culture on the tile controls it. So if you are trying to flip a tile near a capital with a bunch of wonders in it owned by a creative leader, it is going to be very difficult. If it is a newly established border city with no culture buildings it should be fairly easy.