War after the fall patch

[Krajzen]

If one day you will saw message about some crazy dude who got Nobel Prize for finally creating true Artificial Intelligence, you should know it can be Krajzen who became so pissed of struggling with stupid AI in computer games that he decided to create better

 

[Moriarte]

When did you start warring?

Crossbows. 3rd city i captured was Tyre (CS). I expected a break out of hostilities due to that, but, fortunately, as i sponsored few wars here and there, the hatred focus whas somewhat shifted from myself to new emerging warmonger threats. After capturing 8 cities i still had two friends (Carthage and Shoshone) who didn't show a single red modifier. Both of my friends backstabbed me, of course, around t.200, as i never stopped warring from then on.

To Maxym:

I do agree on all points you made. However, instead of readjusting the warmongering scaling, my thinking is along the lines of readjusting warmongering hate for wars with common foe. For example, a war with common foe (denounced or declared upon) will not give you negative modifyers at all, instead, you will actually earn positive modifyers for taking cities/killing units (or both), while DoW/denounciation lasts. The extreme disapproval from the rest of the states could stay an make sense in that scheme of things.

 

[Moriarte]

If one day you will saw message about some crazy dude who got Nobel Prize for finally creating true Artificial Intelligence, you should know it can be Krajzen who became so pissed of struggling with stupid AI in computer games that he decided to create better

That's a dangerous enterprise, my friend. Have you seen Terminator, Matrix?

 

[Krajzen]

That's a dangerous enterprise, my friend. Have you seen Terminator, Matrix?

Yeah, but isn't Civilization VII with awesome AI worth the enslavement of humankind?



Especially considering that these machines would probably put us in front of the computers with Civilization VIII, to play while they would use our body heat energy

 

[Moriarte]

Yeah, tempting.

Civilization VII: Rise of the machines.

 

[Pembroke]

Yeah, but isn't Civilization VII with awesome AI worth the enslavement of humankind?

"I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords."

 

[Maxym]

To Maxym:

I do agree on all points you made. However, instead of readjusting the warmongering scaling, my thinking is along the lines of readjusting warmongering hate for wars with common foe. For example, a war with common foe (denounced or declared upon) will not give you negative modifyers at all, instead, you will actually earn positive modifyers for taking cities/killing units (or both), while DoW/denounciation lasts. The extreme disapproval from the rest of the states could stay an make sense in that scheme of things.

Yes that would be ideal or at least should be part of the fix, but early on it is hard to pile on the positive modifiers without WC , spies and ideologies. Some kind of freebie with regards of CS Dow like the free DoW of old days would let players develop alternative strategies around it. Do I DoW CS early to steal workers, take one out later to secure strategic Rez, or cripple an enemy AI, or secure a chokoint, or perhaps save my free genocide to deal for good with particularly pesky AI. A limited early war should not throw diplomacy out the window.

 

[mrjepson]

I recently finished up a game where due to Romes early aggressive settling I had to declare war on him. I was able to pull in several other neighbors in an attempt to mitigate the war mongering. Of course I ended up taking most of his cities (my allies took the rest) which meant at the end of the war I had war monger penalties that outweighed the bonuses from fighting together. As the game progressed I had to wipe out one other pesky English civilizations as their land was nice and nearby, I get having to pay heavily for that even though the other civs were attacking. I was amazed when I met the other continent only one was particular upset my my past behavior and the rest slowly came to be friends. Eventually even most of the civilizations on my continent dropped their warmonger penalties (dropped completely not just got more positives than negatives) as I had been peaceful with a nice big army for 2000 years. I felt thing was a good balance, I had to face lots of backlash for tripling in size but eventually people forgot as the eras moved by.

 

[Smokeybear]

It is different, yes, but it is not 'broken'. If you want to go early warmonger and start conquering and completely annihilating other civs, you'd best be strong enough and economically prepared enough to withstand the hate and DoWs that will very quickly bring on you- even from would-be friends. Otherwise, wait and build and prepare until you are strong enough to survive it. Either that, or figure out a way to get those friends to go to war with you against the common target, before you pull the trigger.

 

[RedRover57]

I didn't read the whole thread so apologize in advance for any points I make that have been made earlier. I agree that some tweaking of the warmongering penalty system is needed. In particular I really think they should do the following:

1. The warmongering penalties for capturing cities (including the capital) should be eliminated completely if the player did not initiate the war. The penalty should also be eliminated for completely wiping out an aggressor if they only have the one city and were the instigator. The player should be able to punish any civ that declares war without incurring other diplomatic repercussions.

2. If an AI forward settles a city within 6 tiles of a player city (such that the third culture rings will eventually overlap) then this should be considered an act of war and warmonger penalties eliminated for the player if s/he DoWs and captures the city.

3. Warmonger penalties for taking multiple cities under the same DoW should be reduced, unless it results in complete elimination of the AI. As it stands now a single DoW plus taking 3 cities will almost always result in multiple additional DoWs from the AI. This makes early conquest strategies much less desirable and leads to the same boring science-to-win games every time.

4. The AI should never DoW if they are on the other side of the map and have no intent or ability to send an army. They can still get mad and only offer very poor trade deals, but this automatic DoWing is silly and regresses back to the G&K nonsense. These long distance "pseudo" wars can be nearly permanent if the AI perceives itself as being stronger than the player, and it can get really ridiculous if the AI keeps allying city states (e.g., Greece).

 

[Magus Maximus]

I will say that this new system made the honor closer much more valuable than before. In my current game with the Mongols (Emperor), I experimented with going full honor and piety. I am currently at war with about 9 different civs. Although I've been running at a -20 to -40 economy for about 50 turns (since I have no trading partners besides CS), I have yet to to actually have money problems. Killing units becomes the driving force of your economy. I assume this becomes even more valuable at higher levels.

The problem of course might be not falling too behind by not going tradition/liberty.

Now if only Honor offered some happiness...

 

[Smokeybear]

1. The warmongering penalties for capturing cities (including the capital) should be eliminated completely if the player did not initiate the war. The penalty should also be eliminated for completely wiping out an aggressor if they only have the one city and were the instigator. The player should be able to punish any civ that declares war without incurring other diplomatic repercussions.

2. If an AI forward settles a city within 6 tiles of a player city (such that the third culture rings will eventually overlap) then this should be considered an act of war and warmonger penalties eliminated for the player if s/he DoWs and captures the city.

3. Warmonger penalties for taking multiple cities under the same DoW should be reduced, unless it results in complete elimination of the AI. As it stands now a single DoW plus taking 3 cities will almost always result in multiple additional DoWs from the AI. This makes early conquest strategies much less desirable and leads to the same boring science-to-win games every time.

4. The AI should never DoW if they are on the other side of the map and have no intent or ability to send an army. They can still get mad and only offer very poor trade deals, but this automatic DoWing is silly and regresses back to the G&K nonsense. These long distance "pseudo" wars can be nearly permanent if the AI perceives itself as being stronger than the player, and it can get really ridiculous if the AI keeps allying city states (e.g., Greece).

1) I agree that there should be a lowering of the warmonger penalty for capturing any enemy cities, including their capital, if they initiated the war. Not a full removal necessarily, but definitely a lessening.

2) FULLY agree. This is so infuriating, and while the AI gets diplo hits against you for doing the same, you get nothing against them when THEY do it to you. Definitely needed. Especially when it's that friggin' Alexander and he marches his first settler 20 tiles to plop it down 3 tiles away from your first city on top of a lux that would have been in your 3-ring

3) Ambivalent on that one- but, if you are the aggressor, it doesn't seem unfair the way it is now.

4) This area could use some work- if an AI that DoWs you never even commits a unit against you in combat, there should be some kind of limit to how long they can remain at war with you. You're right, it does get quite ridiculous sometimes.

 

[Cromagnus]

It is different, yes, but it is not 'broken'. If you want to go early warmonger and start conquering and completely annihilating other civs, you'd best be strong enough and economically prepared enough to withstand the hate and DoWs that will very quickly bring on you- even from would-be friends. Otherwise, wait and build and prepare until you are strong enough to survive it. Either that, or figure out a way to get those friends to go to war with you against the common target, before you pull the trigger.

Well, on Deity it's not actually possible to be "strong enough" by t60 to withstand the hate and DoWs that warmongering will bring on you. So on Deity, early warmongering is in my opinion nerfed. Moriarte managed to pull off an attack run starting with X-Bows, which is impressive, but that's still Medieval tech, and by then your economy and friendships are stronger, plus some other wars may or may not have started brewing, or you have enough gpt to sponsor wars.

I'm still surprised he managed to take cities that early without getting hated on, but I've been trying to start my attack run with ancient and classical units. On Deity, as many have pointed out, the fact that AIs start out with such a stronger military, may be part of the reason you get DoW'd... you're considered weak.

If you have to wait until you're strong enough, it still means early war is nerfed on Deity. Prior to this patch, I would not get chain-DoW'd for taking a few cities early.

So, my strategy used to be: take a few cities with CBs, recharge until Xbows, take a few more, recharge until artillery, take the rest. (unless there's a runaway on the other side of the map)

Why? Because I like playing civs with early unique units. It's fun.

Now, my strategy is: Beeline education like everyone else. *yawn*

I'm curious to hear more details on Moriarte's successful attack run, did he beeline Machinery after NC? Or attack with XBows after Education? That would seem like a t130 or later attack... a trade-route based beeline can get you to Machinery closer to t110, I would think, so I'm guessing that's the case. My most successful attempt at early warfare so far was a machinery beeline with Elizabeth, starting my attack run on t60, but in my haste to wipe all opposition off the continent before Caravels, (which I did) I destroyed my economy and happiness... spent like 20 turns fighting off rebels with 0 science.

On the positive side, when I did meet the other continent, there was zero warmonger hate. ;-)

Either way, if waiting until t130 is how early warmongering has to go now on Deity, fine, it's just a shame. But poor Assyria and Attila really get the shaft if that's the case.

And this is all moot on Immortal or below. I think someone like Montezuma or Shaka can basically hold his own against the entire world even if he starts conquest as early as t60 on Emperor or below, and maybe even on Immortal. So, the diplomacy issue becomes moot. ;-)

I agree with all the people who are saying "But Deity SHOULD be hard"... and well, I'm not disagreeing with you. But peaceful science victory on Deity has been EASY since BNW, and the patch only made early warmongering harder... this is my complaint. Why make it so that there's only one valid strategy on Deity?

I understand that Firaxis doesn't balance the game for Deity, but I'm hoping that if enough people comment on this, they'll notice and do something about it. If not, well, I need to get a better internet connection so I can play MP. ;-)

 

[Cromagnus]

I will say that this new system made the honor closer much more valuable than before. In my current game with the Mongols (Emperor), I experimented with going full honor and piety. I am currently at war with about 9 different civs. Although I've been running at a -20 to -40 economy for about 50 turns (since I have no trading partners besides CS), I have yet to to actually have money problems. Killing units becomes the driving force of your economy. I assume this becomes even more valuable at higher levels.

The problem of course might be not falling too behind by not going tradition/liberty.

Now if only Honor offered some happiness...

Despite the overall weakness of Honor compared to the other openers, I'm finding it can actually work if you're really careful about your economy prior to the closer.

And there is actually happiness. The happiness in Honor is equivalent to Liberty until 5% of your population is actually a significant amount. And you don't need roads. The problem is that it costs you gpt to maintain that happiness.

Same thing goes for culture. In the early game the culture in Honor is better than Liberty. It costs you gpt, but if you follow the right side track first, you get that gpt back from upgrading to CBs. The value of the culture and happiness in Honor really tapers off by the time you close Honor, but if you start a war around t80-t90, the gold/kill really has an impact.

This is my new post-patch approach to Honor. (Right side before left, upgrade to XBows and pikemen cheap, then start chewing through units for bonus XP and gold/kill)

It's not as strong an opener as Liberty, but you can hang in there. Where it really struggles is getting a third and 4th city out. Which I think is intentional. I think Honor was designed with the intent that you only build 2 cities and capture the rest. That's where the devs have really screwed Honor with the new patch.

 

[Glassmage]

im getting a headache from this new warmonger penalty system but it is more challenging. I took Egypt's capital and immediately all AI's declare war on me.

 

[Magus Maximus]

Despite the overall weakness of Honor compared to the other openers, I'm finding it can actually work if you're really careful about your economy prior to the closer.

And there is actually happiness. The happiness in Honor is equivalent to Liberty until 5% of your population is actually a significant amount. And you don't need roads. The problem is that it costs you gpt to maintain that happiness.

Same thing goes for culture. In the early game the culture in Honor is better than Liberty. It costs you gpt, but if you follow the right side track first, you get that gpt back from upgrading to CBs. The value of the culture and happiness in Honor really tapers off by the time you close Honor, but if you start a war around t80-t90, the gold/kill really has an impact.

This is my new post-patch approach to Honor. (Right side before left, upgrade to XBows and pikemen cheap, then start chewing through units for bonus XP and gold/kill)

It's not as strong an opener as Liberty, but you can hang in there. Where it really struggles is getting a third and 4th city out. Which I think is intentional. I think Honor was designed with the intent that you only build 2 cities and capture the rest. That's where the devs have really screwed Honor with the new patch.

It is true that honor does have some happiness. However, even if it compares to liberty and/or tradition, that is still not enough. Once everybody hates you, you won't be able to trade luxuries. Also, grabbing happiness from CSs can be hard once they are all locked in perma war with you because their allies DOWed you.

Plus, with conquest/domination being the point of honor, you are likely to have way more cities than if you had gone with a peaceful tradition or liberty game. So you need more happiness. The preferred way to combat this appears to be to raze cities, but that just seems too gamey to me. Why would I go through the trouble of invading and taking a city just to destroy it? What am I a brute from a barbarian camp?

If happiness was once used a a way to prevent over expanding by conquest, I think we have a new system in place now. Perhaps it's time to reevaluate.

 

[Moriarte]

I'm curious to hear more details on Moriarte's successful attack run, did he beeline Machinery after NC? Or attack with XBows after Education? That would seem like a t130 or later attack... a trade-route based beeline can get you to Machinery closer to t110, I would think, so I'm guessing that's the case. My most successful attempt at early warfare so far was a machinery beeline with Elizabeth, starting my attack run on t60, but in my haste to wipe all opposition off the continent before Caravels, (which I did) I destroyed my economy and happiness... spent like 20 turns fighting off rebels with 0 science.

Yes, about t.120, after education. Added some treb's and knights in process. I havent done super early runs yet, but i read a good one from glory, in newest deity challenge in S&T section. He went to war straight off the bat starting @ t.70 and filled honor + some in commerce. By the looks of it, he has 3-4 civs left to kill and the game will end soon after he gets to artilleries.

And that's supposed to be 1.5x harder than going liberty or tradition. So it's far from impossible.

 

[Maxym]

I wish honor got back the happy from walls, with the others still staying in autocracy. it would not be huge on it's own but would male honor viable again. I was using it preBNW for the happy it provided in wide domination games. And yes always right side, left was useless.

Upgrades to CB and XB you can suck it up, but to move all those double tap, range, march and cover XBs to GG and MGs was painful without it. Not to mention, arties, battleships and destroyer upgrades.

If acquiring a few cities early or killing one CS would not cause such out of proportion response the rest of the new warmonger system scales quite nicely once layer eras roll by and there is more positives to stack. Because taking one CS or few early cities is not a game ending advantage or world menace especially if not followed by future conquest. In cases of true domination or domination/CV sure pile the AI DoWs on, we deserve them then

 

[RedRover57]

Quite frankly after going Honor in the Germany Deity Challenge if I was forced to choose between Honor or Liberty I would go Honor. In the long run it is stronger for a domination win. Tradition is the clear winner though. That challenge is a lot of fun but it seems a bit over the top getting chain DoWed by 3 civs after one early war (where I took 3 cities).

 

[funkymunky]

I think those chain DOW's are probably the biggest unbalancing element of the game. The devs should probably just consider altogether removing the warmonger points for denouncements received, because I think what happens when you take a city or two, is that it makes the mushes who hate warmongering denounce almost immediately, and when they do that the warmonger points they add to your point pool then causes you to pass the threshold that others would consider denouncing you, and so they then denounce you and which causes the points to accumulate exponentially to the point where they all want to DOW and then you find yourself in a world war. But it they removed the points for denouncements and just applied for DOW and city captures, it would probably be a bit less drastic and more balanced and just based on your actions, which you can control, and not on the irrational logic of the AI.