Acid_04: The final frontier

[Trojan Sheep]

Lurker Comment:

The "friendly" war declarations are nothing new. On multiple occasions previous to using Better AI, I tried changing religions when I noticed a stack o' doom nearing my borders and despite getting to friendly because of this it did nothing to deter them.

Honestly though I think this is realistic. If you've made all your plans to invade your neighbor, and they come giving you some free bananas or something, sure you'll say "thanks for the free health chump", but you'll still turn around and conquer them and their bananas just like you planned, just maybe with some tiny shred of remorse

I won't knock your opinion about things rat, but personally despite really enjoying Civ 3, Civ 4 has been a hundred times better for me, it's kept me glued to my screen for many sleepless nights and kept me bugging my roommate to play multiplayer with me all the time, Better AI has only served to fuel that fire.

I actually really like the vassal system, but only for the flavor and opportunities for conflict it provides, not because it gives some mechanical advantage (or disadvantage as the case may actually be ). The only thing I really miss from civ 3 are the age specific leaderheads and the palace screen

 

[Atlas]

MM isn't necessarily easier or better. Just think of that whipping bug and how to exploit it. Whenever I played a game, there is constant MM needed as the governor has a tendency to assign specialist rather randomly and not really logical (I had so many instances where suddenly a citizen specialist was selected). The fact that cities need to be specialized does add to MM a lot. And the headache that you can only have 2 national wonders per city. Or the rather mundane tasks to add specialists to get the right type of GP...it's more like accounting

The whipping bug is just that a bug, not there by design. As for micro, I have to disagree, if I choose not to Micro in Civ4- I get bad specialist and tile assignment. If I choose not to micro in Civ3 I get cities rioting. The penalty for not micromanaging everything is much worse in Civ3-no production. Thus Micromanaging is mandatory in Civ3, but optional in Civ4 at Monarch and below. I will certainly agree that the specialist assignment is not terribly good and a better/smarter UI for the governor and assigning specialist is certainly an area for improvement.

Yep, it would be good to have some no war weariness civic combination (something like Communism from Civ3 (no WW, but terrible research is the cost). AW with WW is silly agreed, but the system of fighting in your borders not accruing WW is better than Civ3. It is a step by step process, incremental progression through the series and back to square one every time a new feature is added (think of the difference b/w great people in Civ3 v. Civ4- so much better now).

Police state (-50%), Rushmore (-25%) and jail (-25%) reduces WW by 100%. Does that eliminate WW ( I'm not clever or experienced enough to know).

No it does not, in fact it is in the modern era (when building/implementing these things is possible) that WW is the worst (due to the mechanics of how it is calculated).

 

[darrelljs]

No it does not, in fact it is in the modern era (when building/implementing these things is possible) that WW is the worst (due to the mechanics of how it is calculated).

You sure about that? I know with the initial release, that Jails were applied separately, i.e. all three would leave you with 0.25 * (1 - 0.5 - 0.25) = 3/16. There is a line in the 1.09 patch notes that is "fixed war weariness calculation bug..." which I thought fixed this.

Darrell

 

[Mutineer]

I allways believe, and my expirience from memory did confirm it as far as I remember that building effect and civics effect apply separatly.

So min WW posible is (1-.25 -.25) *(1-0.5) = 0.25

May be they change something in paches.

WW in modern era is bad because ww ~ number of dead soldiers. I think warrior is something like 1000 soldiers, when modern army like 32000 or somhting along this lines.

 

[uberfish]

Police state + rushmore + jails does kill WW off totally.

 

[acidsatyr]

well i think what happened in this game is what we all secretly knew its going to happen, one of ais is going to backstab us.
I dont think anyone coulve done any better in this position, just one of those games you are doomed because of so many backstabers

edit:

btw, i completely agree with mutineer on vassal system. You are cultivating your relationship with other civ and get to friendly yet because he is pissed of at your vassal he declares on you. Doesnt make sense. if he is pissed of because you have vassal then once you get vassal arent you suppose to get , say -8 to relations so that at least you know what your on. This way it doesnt make sense. All positive modifiers you have with that civ are nonexistant.

 

[futurehermit]

Tough luck this time guys. As acid said earlier you had worst possible ais Sucks!

 

[pigswill]

Still Lurking
Certainly have to agree with acidsatyr that relations displayed should reflect actual relations. If that means that Firaxis add -5 for 'we hate your vassal' at least you would know where you stood and could plan accordingly.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

War wariness gets reduced 99%, rounded up, is the best description I can give. From my experience, even with jails, mount rushmore and police state, I got -1 for war wariness almost immediately. BUT it stayed -1 for the whole war.

As to the backstab... just keep your units inside your cities and see if he'll bash your vassal. Beg for peace if that happens. If not, play on anyway. Not all succession games end up as victories, and only with defeat do we know what the limits of this team are.

 

[futurehermit]

Agreed, go down in a blaze of glory if nothing else

 

[acidsatyr]

Im sure everyone in this team will fight 'till the last city. Im also sure that, if we loose, this won't be the limit of this team in any way.

 

[acidsatyr]

Mark, you here ?

Come on, how many cities we got left ?

 

[futurehermit]

Mark, you here ?

Come on, how many cities we got left ?

ROFL!!!

 

[Mark1031]

OK I'm having computer problems. My laptop that I play on is having power issues, may be fixed monday. I loaded conquests onto my desktop which plays civ just fine and it crashes when I try to start the warlords. Can't figure it out so either wait till late Mon. or Tues or skip me. I'm really pissed as these should be exciting turns.

 

[futurehermit]

Wow, just wanted to say your guys' thread has more viewings than the game registration thread

 

[acidsatyr]

lawl, just noticed

OK I'm having computer problems. My laptop that I play on is having power issues, may be fixed monday. I loaded conquests onto my desktop which plays civ just fine and it crashes when I try to start the warlords. Can't figure it out so either wait till late Mon. or Tues or skip me. I'm really pissed as these should be exciting turns.

I'm cool with waiting, if you really want to play those turns

 

[Mark1031]

I do. I don;t mind presiding over our downfall. I plan to give the Zulu city back, I assume they will accept, I haven;t checked, to free up most of our infantry. If the Zulu attack as I suspect they might they would be lost anyway.

 

[Mutineer]

yes, it probably is a correct decision. This city become pure liability, only question is, if we give this city back, what happened with culture borders of other 2 borders cities. I need to look on save to say for sure. My point is, if you give city back, check that units in other 2 cities do not get trapped.

 

[uberfish]

We need those units back I think. I guess the lesson of this is to always keep a couple of spare settlers on hand when fighting a razing war to prevent the enemy resettling. If Shaka declares, the position at Tonsberg is indefensible anyway.

 

[Mark1031]

1730: OK Switch back to slavery. And whip a few things.

On the IT Toku declares on us and lands 3 tanks and a cannon at Visgoth.

1735: Give back Tonsberg to Shaka to free up our infantry army. Damn I wish I wouldn’t have switched to slavery because it requires 5 turns to get to nationalism now. Toku timed it perfectly. Look around and see we have warriors defending some of our cities. Whip another infantry in Visgoth for 6 pop. What a waste. If only I had Nationalism. Research to 0. We have lots of rifles to upgrade. Moving almost all troops to the Jap front. If Zulu attack it is over.

1740: Toku now lands several stacks so big I don’t want to count them. Visgoth is lost for sure. More troops being moved. 2 more turns to bring the main army to the front. Arty in 2 turns also.

1745: Visgoth falls. Teching up Wang so he can upgrade our old troops. Troops reach the front. The Zulu should backstab us any moment. 2 more turns to Nationalism.

1750: Wang teched up to arty and infantry. Takes 4 old trebs but won’t take our chariot. Well troops are to the front. We have tanks scattered everywhere, what I wouldn’t give for about 5 gunships. Upgrade 4 cannon. Research to Rocketry.

1755: Switch to Nationalism. He is not attacking cities but bypassing and pillaging. This is murder as he also does not have a big SoD that we can chew up. Take a few injured tanks that Wang produced by sacrificing a big stack to the tank meat grinder. Our Might Sargon wins @ only 22% to open up a path to wipe out a stack of 4 cavs.

1760: Finally able to wipe out a stack of 5 tanks with loss of a couple of cannon.

1765: We are holding our own here. Wipe out a stack of infantry/Arty. Shaka builds a casing. General born, heads to Draftsville.

1770: Sadly I must report that Sargon has died in battle at 87% odds. On a brighter note our territory is cleared of Toku’s troops save for a single infantryman. Well, things are stabilized. Perhaps we can push back on Toku and regain our continent and then switch to Shaka he seems to be starting the space race.

oops I think I only played 9 turns but it seemed like more.