A deity victory writeup

LukaSlovenia29

Emperor
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
1,500
Hi.

I won a deity game. Playing as Maya vs. Songhai, Assyria, Greece, Poland, Egypt, Aztecs and Arabia, oval map, all standard settings (no events, though, not sure if they're enabled by default), won a science victory on turn 308.

Disclaimer: I made two major save&reloads, in both cases going back some 50 turns. The first one was fairly early, where the Songhai settled in the middle of my empire in very deserty setting, something I thought it wouldn't do because I thought it was a really horrible place for a city, even with AI bonuses. It was just out of reach of my tile-buying-prevention-stragety, so I went back around 50 turns, built one city one tile close to my capital, which allowed me to buy tiles in a way it prevented such settling. Otherwise I played the 50 turns the same. The other was late in the game when ideologies came online. Poland picked first (Freedom), I picked second. The first time I picked Order because I thought that surely not everyone else would go Freedom, especially with some civs going imperialism and conquering left and right. Sure enough, everyone else picked Freedom and later on all my DoFs were cancelled, I was denounced and then declared on despite oodless of positive diplo modifiers. So I went back 50 turns, selected Freedom and played the game from then on (again trying to play the same way), with everyone else again picking Freedom.

Included are some screenshots from the final turn.

I started next to olives and lakes. I went shrine first, hoping to grab either the purity or springtime pantheon. I started with researching pottery. Built shrine, then warrior, then two settlers, a warrior and another settler. My scout got culture, money and upgrade to scout from ruins (which enabled me to use it as a military unit). I grabbed the purity pantheon.

To the north I saw a nice settling spot with lots of marshes by a river and forests/jungles abound for my kunas. I had to declare war on Songhai to zone-of-control prevent their settler/warrior pair from reaching the settling spots before my settler. I then used my warrior/scout pair to attack the warrior, sending the settler and the warrior back to whence they came from. I then settled another city to the west of the new city, immediately buying a forested tile next to Mbanza-Kongo so in the future I could steal the CS tiles with a great general if necessary (it turned out it wasn't, I had enough other tiles). The next settler went to the east in a good defensive position, with lots of jungles/forests for my kunas.

Once I researched pottery, I beelined for construction and bought a worker, then built one to go building kunas. After building some more warriors, I built three more settlers, then went on building horsemen/swordsmen for protection. I made peace with Askia, luckily I never saw its mandekalu cavalries going against my cities. In all the new cities, I went shrines first (I think an exception was one of the cities with walls). I settled all my cities away from the coast for defensive purposes. I bought tiles to prevent any AIs attempting to settle a single spot to the south of Palenque, whilst also preserving that spot to later settle in the modern era (with the hospital technology settler) when I could defend coastal cities. So I had 7 cities throughout most of the game, with the 8th coming online in the modern era.

Since I had kunas, I could afford to focus less on building science infrastructure and focused first on building up my production capacities (forge,...). I went progress. Assyria founded first around turn 65, I founded second or third, grabbed apostolic tradition and churches, then used my first free GP for a great prophet, immediately enhancing with pacifism (for happiness and cheaper missionaries) and mandirs (hoping to help me with big cities alongside olives' monopoly and castles' food bonuses) . Songhai and Greece were the other two founders. I managed to spread uncontested to a big Polish empire, granting me enough followers to reform, went with one world, one religion so I could spread my religion more easily and to deny Poland&co. benefits from my reformation belief. I then managed to spread to Egypt, then Aztecs and lastly Arabia (which eventually fell to Songhai despite having the Great wall). Somehere along the line Poland proposed my religion for the world religion and it lasted until the penultimate WC session where it was recalled.

I beelined to get the 5th policy so I could time that with my 2nd free person, a great engineer, to grab the Oracle and complete my Progress tree. Then I went Fealty and later on Rationalism.

At some point the Songhai offered me a defensive pact, which I accepted because my army wasn't strong enough to withstand a Songhai attack, which led to a DoF. This did lead to a war with Assyria when it declared on Songhai, but due to good defensive positions of my cities I survived without many problems. This was the second of the three wars I had in the game. During the pact, I worked on upgrading my army (also by keeping friends with Belgrade, Mbanza-Kongo and Sofia for free units), so when the first expired, I didn't accept it anymore.

I tried to keep a low profile throughout the most of the game, using my diplomats to share intrigues which perhaps helped to keep the major powers (Assyria, Songhai, Poland) in wars with (each) others, leaving me alone. I also rushed civil service for open borders (for more friendliness and easier missionary spreading), then banks to benefit from purchasing. I missed out on Forbidden palace by a few turns, went to Egypt (which in the last 100 turns or so got chopped up by Poland and Assyria). I remained more or less in touch science-wise for a long time, eventually benefiting from kunas, monasteries and rationalism to pull ahead. I was selling technology to Egypt, Aztecs, Arabia and Greece for plenty of GPT.

Throughout the game, I focused on great scientists and engineers in my cities, with also building 3 GW guilds, 2 GAs guilds and 1 GM guild in my capital. Palenque was big due to apostolic tradition, so it was basically the only city where I worked on GMs, GMs and GDs. In retrospect, I should have perhaps dedicated one less city to engineers and more more to merchants (because of the bonus to production during WLTKD from fealty). GAs weren't essential because of apostolic tradition, and musicians weren't important because I built a caravansary in Palenque and sent all my caravans from there, earning me enough cultural influence to benefit from trade routes.

Due to lots of great engineers and tech parity, I managed to grab Slater's mill and Eiffel tower, and later on I grabbed some key wonders for a faster science victory. Two last hiccups in my game were Poland's votes and Assyria. I noticed Poland (who went statecraft) had plenty of votes to pull off a diplomatic victory, so I had to focus Palenque on building diplomatic units to keep Belgrade, Mbanza-Kongo,..., my allies, and to try to take some of the CS to the east. Assyria declaring on me on its own in the modern era, which made it harder for me to send diplomatic units to the east (had to make a long detour), plus they were seriously threatening my new coastal city. I kept on stationing units next to the city so they'd soak up the damage (another thing I'd recommend AI change - focus on the city first, then units surrounding it), plus stationed several ranged units, and also kept on buying bomber in nearby Palenque. My city withstood the 30 something turns long siege and I made peace with Assyria.

Poland didn't win a cultural or diplomatic victory in large part due to AIs wrong decisions (see https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/some-endgame-observations-from-the-latest-version.624389/ for more), because of Songhai and Assyria strong culture and because in the wars it lost several allies and lost three city states to my influence, thus bringing its vote count to below the required (though it could have crept up again with the bonus from diplomats technology). If the Poland AI were more focused on peace (enabling it to keep CS, to keep diplomats, to be able to send musicians,...), it very well could have won before I won a science victory. In the end, it was a clear victory, and I only had 3 or 4 fewer policies than Poland.

All in all an interesting game, but I definitely have to play a bit more safe and not underestimate the AI's decision re: settling and ideologies, and hopefully I'll soon win a deity game without reloading the game.

Screenshots in the next post.
 
Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.44.07.png Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.44.35.png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.44.40.png
    Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.44.40.png
    2.1 MB · Views: 232
  • Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.45.11.png
    Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.45.11.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 799
  • Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.45.13.png
    Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.45.13.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 213
  • Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.45.15.png
    Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.45.15.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 714
  • Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.45.17.png
    Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.45.17.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 193
  • Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.45.28.png
    Screenshot 2017-11-12 13.45.28.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 203
yeah pacifism + churches really makes a mockery of the happiness system. add oval in the mix, fuhgeddaboutit!

the "happiness = culture" addition to the fealty branch was an especially poor balance design choice for precisely that same reason as well

a good read tho, thanks for the writeup =)
 
Last edited:
308th turn is pretty late. Today i lost a game for Venice, and Korea won Space Ship on turn 278.
Actually i should have won, and i thought i am going for the record. I was planning to win before turn 270, but then they passed Cold War proposal and denied me like 15 trade routes to Korea, and they all were 5-10 turns before completion and each if them worth 4000 tourism.
 
Nice write up! Thank you!
Out of curiosity: how many hours did it take to complete this game?
 
Thanks for the replies!

Deadstarre, I agree, that's why I'll modify the VP so that churches will retain +1 missionary spread, whereas another building will get the +50 religious pressure, hopefully it will help things balance out.

Matutin, I'm not sure, but I guess I'd say around 16 hours? It helped that there was very little combat and that I had a relatively small empire (7-8 cities), so it went by fast.
 
I agree. I've proposed it a while ago to no avail. I've now modified the files so Churches get "only" 25% religious pressure, but they keep the extra missionary spread and they gain extra 2 faith (so +6 faith), and I've added 25% pressure to Stupas, so now Stupas have 50% pressure (I checked the old discussion about the follower beliefs balance and of all the religious buildings, pre-pagoda nerf, Stupas were considered the worst by the community, so I decided to buff it).

This way, a civ looking to spread a lot has to/can choose between an extra spread (Churches) or extra religious pressure (Stupas), and if they're really lucky, they can get both. I think it's going to decrease the odds of one religion becoming a dominant religion (which in my games often happened with the civ that picked Churches, especially when that civ was me:)).
 
Thanks for the replies!

Deadstarre, I agree, that's why I'll modify the VP so that churches will retain +1 missionary spread, whereas another building will get the +50 religious pressure, hopefully it will help things balance out.

Matutin, I'm not sure, but I guess I'd say around 16 hours? It helped that there was very little combat and that I had a relatively small empire (7-8 cities), so it went by fast.

Don’t do this. Actually open a discussion on the issue. Modmods are not a community solution.

G
 
Modmods are not a community solution.

G

The envoy / emissary thread was one a lot of people actively partook discussion in, there were tons of good ideas in there and a page after page of meaningful discussion but ultimately the change you opted for was actually not something literally anybody asked for (lowering emissary influence without even touching his production cost, and no other changes) - id say that kind of thing really deters people from wanting to actively partake in "community solution" threads. its a whole lot easier to just fix the matter yourself quickly.

about Churches, the change I made was simply lowering the pressure output from 50 to 33- it's making an enormous difference in my current game and they don't feel quite so OP but obviously theyre still really good. Pacifism is the real problem as it's presented in the base VP game, I know its already been nerfed from 8 to 10, I changed it to 12 for myself but its still going to be OP in any deity game especially since the minority religion followers apply their own pressure now (when was that change made I forgot, it's a great mechanic but it makes pacifism still ridiculous) - to fix pacifism the happiness mechanic just needs a rework, another simple number change won't do it.

something that really helps keep pacifism and all other religion issues under control is raising the max number of religions, I always play with 5 on standard and I often have byzantium in the game as well so every game there are either 5 or 6 religions and over 2 different continents - Im aware this is probably a personal taste thing but it allows me to not feel completely OP with religion.
 
The envoy / emissary thread was one a lot of people actively partook discussion in, there were tons of good ideas in there and a page after page of meaningful discussion but ultimately the change you opted for was actually not something literally anybody asked for (lowering emissary influence without even touching his production cost, and no other changes) - id say that kind of thing really deters people from wanting to actively partake in "community solution" threads. its a whole lot easier to just fix the matter yourself quickly.

A cursory glance at this forum shows that there is more than enough engagement in seeking community solutions. My recollection of the "envoy" thread is that there were a lot of ideas, but no consensus... so Gazebo arrived at his own solution. Which, of course, doesn't mean you shouldn't change it to work the way you want, if the status quo isn't to your taste.
 
The envoy / emissary thread was one a lot of people actively partook discussion in, there were tons of good ideas in there and a page after page of meaningful discussion but ultimately the change you opted for was actually not something literally anybody asked for (lowering emissary influence without even touching his production cost, and no other changes) - id say that kind of thing really deters people from wanting to actively partake in "community solution" threads. its a whole lot easier to just fix the matter yourself quickly.

about Churches, the change I made was simply lowering the pressure output from 50 to 33- it's making an enormous difference in my current game and they don't feel quite so OP but obviously theyre still really good. Pacifism is the real problem as it's presented in the base VP game, I know its already been nerfed from 8 to 10, I changed it to 12 for myself but its still going to be OP in any deity game especially since the minority religion followers apply their own pressure now (when was that change made I forgot, it's a great mechanic but it makes pacifism still ridiculous) - to fix pacifism the happiness mechanic just needs a rework, another simple number change won't do it.

something that really helps keep pacifism and all other religion issues under control is raising the max number of religions, I always play with 5 on standard and I often have byzantium in the game as well so every game there are either 5 or 6 religions and over 2 different continents - Im aware this is probably a personal taste thing but it allows me to not feel completely OP with religion.

Because my solution was not your solution, that does not mean it was not influenced by and based on the discussion. That’s silly.

Anyways it is infinitely more useful for me for users to discuss and deliberate imbalances. Modmods that are personal and specific (and balance focused) but are not shared with the community Balkanize our community. Please don’t.

G
 
Don’t do this. Actually open a discussion on the issue. Modmods are not a community solution.

G

What's wrong with modmods? Everyone has their own personal quirks about what they like to see in play. It would be highly unlikely a single version could please everybody equally. Small personal deviations from a basic overall structure seems like a good solution to that?
 
Posted in the general balance subforum.

On an unrelated not - for me as a Slovenian of Croatian descent, it's always interesting to see the word "Balkanize" :D
 
What's wrong with modmods? Everyone has their own personal quirks about what they like to see in play. It would be highly unlikely a single version could please everybody equally. Small personal deviations from a basic overall structure seems like a good solution to that?
I think that what G means is to avoid to fragment the community more than it is currently (Tech trade vs RA, ...), at least as long as VP's balance is not stabilized.

Supposing that this mod does not die, balance modmod are unavoidable in the long run, but if as much people as possible play with the same setup, it helps balancing.
 
Because my solution was not your solution, that does not mean it was not influenced by and based on the discussion.

G

repeat- your solution wasn't anyones solution, and your fix seemed to entirely miss the point of the discussion.
 
repeat- your solution wasn't anyones solution, and your fix seemed to entirely miss the point of the discussion.
I've learned by failures that it's better to convince people of doing something than it is demanding them doing the same thing (unless you have a big army to support your demands, that is). By accusing, you put the other in a defensive stance, unreceptive to anything else you may want to say.

G has nothing against modmods, but if you say that his mod isn't addressing some issue properly and that your solution is much better in the general thread, even if you are right, it's offensive. Enginseer has made several modmods and I have never heard any complaint about balkanization before. I think the mod you just did can be used for testing your (our) ideas, to show if they work properly, as long as they are not intended to be a fork of the main mod.
 
I've learned by failures that it's better to convince people of doing something than it is demanding them doing the same thing

just to recap, I've demanded nothing.

G has nothing against modmods

see G's post above - he literally just expressly said he did if they are "personal"

but if you say that his mod isn't addressing some issue properly and that your solution is much better in the general thread, even if you are right, it's offensive.

thats good, because I never said it that way at any point. What I said was that it appears to me he just missed the point and discussion of that thread and failed to address a lot of peoples concerns with the current system, instead opting to apply his own fix which was ultimately 1) actually not a part of anyones suggestions or solutions 2) something I think one person strongly had expressed NOT to do, only because of the fact that a flat nerf to emissary with no other adjustment made would apparently bring this mod back somewhere it had already been before (and didn't work, hence demands for change were made)

Then you get like the Nov 6th thread, with tons of people chiming in how Fealty needs fixing, and G says for people to make a thread about it but then nobody does (yet?) - so when G asks people to make threads rather than just fixing things themselves, I chimed in with an example of why I think that isnt happening more


so just to be clear - the fact that I had ever even offered any solution to that emissary thread is neither here nor there and was completely aside the point I was just making, even though G seized on that fact and kind of used it as a strawman to call my statement silly just now for some odd reason.
 
Last edited:
just to recap, I've demanded nothing.



see G's post above - he literally just expressly said he did if they are "personal"



thats good, because I never said it that way at any point. What I said was that it appears to me he just missed the point and discussion of that thread and failed to address a lot of peoples concerns with the current system, instead opting to apply his own fix which was ultimately 1) actually not a part of anyones suggestions or solutions 2) something I think one person strongly had expressed NOT to do, only because of the fact that a flat nerf to emissary with no other adjustment made would apparently bring this mod back somewhere it had already been before (and didn't work, hence demands for change were made)

Then you get like the Nov 6th thread, with tons of people chiming in how Fealty needs fixing, and G says for people to make a thread about it but then nobody does (yet?) - so when G asks people to make threads rather than just fixing things themselves, I chimed in with an example of why I think that isnt happening more


so just to be clear - the fact that I had ever even offered any solution to that emissary thread is neither here nor there and was completely aside the point I was just making, even though G seized on that fact and kind of used it as a strawman to call my statement silly just now for some odd reason.


Not being manipulative or making any argument beyond that of ‘please share concerns, don’t just modmod and remain silent.’ If you read anything else into my posts that’s on you. Personal modmods do not benefit the community.

G
 
Back
Top Bottom